Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Hullaballoo Wolfowitz |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Comment | Closed, conduct issue, nothing to be mediated. |
Jessicka and Clint Catalyst, as well as others.
ADDITION: Posted Aug10, 2010 by Good Faith Editor TruthWik: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is knowingly and intentionally altering the birth date of model Cindy Guyer by changing the year from 1961 to 1969 in an attempt to lower her age. It is apparent he has a personal relationship with the model and working at her behest to falsify information on Wikipedia.
(There may be more, but these are who I've seen involved)
I believe Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk · contribs) is Gaming the system, in an attempt to undermine a several articles, that they have a (seemingly) personal vendetta against, the main articles that I believe he has a problem with are Jessicka (and any article that mentions her: Musicians [1], Bands [2], Artists [3] and even Language [4]) and other editor have been having a lot of trouble with him and the Clint Catalyst article. It seems on the surface that the editor is only trying to make the articles fit in with wikipedia policy as there is nothing that says an editor must attempt to fix article/refs when they find a problem, just remove the bad content, but the way they are going about it appears to be very dubious when looked at a bit deeper (including calling edits Spam and Vandalism to avoid accusations of edit warring, reverting edits in several small edits to avoid 3RR and randomly choosing new refs/content to remove each day [5]), specially as they are using WP:BLP as a sheild for removing all content not just the bad. Also I believe Hullaballoo Wolfowitz maliciously removed an image (and attacking the uploader of the image [6]) as part of an attempt to undermine articles, while using wikipedia policy as a sheild, when the question of why he removed them was raised. I do seriously believe that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has some sort of vendeta going on, and that they are editing articles with bad intentions (as shown by their derogatory comments towards the subject on several occations [7] [8]). As mentioned a few other editors seem to be having a lot of trouble with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, they know better than I do the way Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has acted toward themselves and the articles that they are trying to maintain.
Any attempt to reach Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on their talk page, just seems to lead to removal of the section and accusations of harassment. [9]
I would like for someone from outside of this 'discussion' on policy, good/bad faith editing and where it fits into improving wikiepedia articles, to look into Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's behaviour in all of this, beyond their use of policy as a shield.
Advice to everyone involved and help in seeking a nice quiet end to all this fuss, so that we can all get back to trying to improve articles, weather it be articles that are within the scope of our own personal interests, or by making sure that articles fit into the right polices and standards. I would also like advice on weather it would be worthwhile taking this to RfC or RfArb, if MedCab is not the right place for this.
Normally we don't do conduct disputes. Is there any content area for a mediator to participate in? -- Xavexgoem ( talk) 22:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I for one think if this doesn't work we need to take this to RFC. Also I'm trying to figure out how to do a blocked user check. There may be evidence that Hullballoo is a blocked editor evading said block. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive509#Possible_checkuser_abuse.2C_inappropriate_block_threats_by_admin_AuburnPilot Swancookie ( talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Swancookie ( talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think RFC is our only option. I'd say start and RFC or an ANI and the rest of us will join you Cubert. Swancookie ( talk) 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if any and all articles that this user (or, group of users) has succeeded in having deleted were restored. Once the "charges" have been proven. Dogtownclown ( talk) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Has this been brought to the incidence noticeboard? Xavexgoem ( talk) 04:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Hullaballoo Wolfowitz |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Comment | Closed, conduct issue, nothing to be mediated. |
Jessicka and Clint Catalyst, as well as others.
ADDITION: Posted Aug10, 2010 by Good Faith Editor TruthWik: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is knowingly and intentionally altering the birth date of model Cindy Guyer by changing the year from 1961 to 1969 in an attempt to lower her age. It is apparent he has a personal relationship with the model and working at her behest to falsify information on Wikipedia.
(There may be more, but these are who I've seen involved)
I believe Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk · contribs) is Gaming the system, in an attempt to undermine a several articles, that they have a (seemingly) personal vendetta against, the main articles that I believe he has a problem with are Jessicka (and any article that mentions her: Musicians [1], Bands [2], Artists [3] and even Language [4]) and other editor have been having a lot of trouble with him and the Clint Catalyst article. It seems on the surface that the editor is only trying to make the articles fit in with wikipedia policy as there is nothing that says an editor must attempt to fix article/refs when they find a problem, just remove the bad content, but the way they are going about it appears to be very dubious when looked at a bit deeper (including calling edits Spam and Vandalism to avoid accusations of edit warring, reverting edits in several small edits to avoid 3RR and randomly choosing new refs/content to remove each day [5]), specially as they are using WP:BLP as a sheild for removing all content not just the bad. Also I believe Hullaballoo Wolfowitz maliciously removed an image (and attacking the uploader of the image [6]) as part of an attempt to undermine articles, while using wikipedia policy as a sheild, when the question of why he removed them was raised. I do seriously believe that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has some sort of vendeta going on, and that they are editing articles with bad intentions (as shown by their derogatory comments towards the subject on several occations [7] [8]). As mentioned a few other editors seem to be having a lot of trouble with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, they know better than I do the way Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has acted toward themselves and the articles that they are trying to maintain.
Any attempt to reach Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on their talk page, just seems to lead to removal of the section and accusations of harassment. [9]
I would like for someone from outside of this 'discussion' on policy, good/bad faith editing and where it fits into improving wikiepedia articles, to look into Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's behaviour in all of this, beyond their use of policy as a shield.
Advice to everyone involved and help in seeking a nice quiet end to all this fuss, so that we can all get back to trying to improve articles, weather it be articles that are within the scope of our own personal interests, or by making sure that articles fit into the right polices and standards. I would also like advice on weather it would be worthwhile taking this to RfC or RfArb, if MedCab is not the right place for this.
Normally we don't do conduct disputes. Is there any content area for a mediator to participate in? -- Xavexgoem ( talk) 22:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I for one think if this doesn't work we need to take this to RFC. Also I'm trying to figure out how to do a blocked user check. There may be evidence that Hullballoo is a blocked editor evading said block. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive509#Possible_checkuser_abuse.2C_inappropriate_block_threats_by_admin_AuburnPilot Swancookie ( talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Swancookie ( talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think RFC is our only option. I'd say start and RFC or an ANI and the rest of us will join you Cubert. Swancookie ( talk) 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if any and all articles that this user (or, group of users) has succeeded in having deleted were restored. Once the "charges" have been proven. Dogtownclown ( talk) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Has this been brought to the incidence noticeboard? Xavexgoem ( talk) 04:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)