I agree, in part, with Collect's assessment. However I disagree with the characterization of the problem as merely "civility" issues. TenPoundHammer has civility issues. *I* have civility issues. I wouldn't be surprised (given our differing Wiki-philosophies), if TPH and I have had incivil words with each other. Any honest-speaking editor with a strong opinion about this project-- admins included-- occasionally has civility issues. And the problem here is not TPH's AfDs-- not one of which *I*, by the way, would have supported. The problem here is much larger than this-- it is Hullaballoo's absolute refusal to discuss or compromise, and his invariable edit-warring. Just one more example: The edit histor of Maria Ozawa, August 11, 2010 shows Hullaballoo repeatedly removing a translation of a Japanese article, claiming it's a "blog" source. The edit history shows me repeatedly begging him to discuss his concerns, before finally getting sick of this bullying, and Wikipedia's tolerance for this kind of bullying, and just leaving. Hullaballoo's actions force editors to take make this decision between being fighters or contributors. To my knowledge I have never seen Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, once reverted, not re-revert. This is contrary to common-sense at a collaborative project, sensibly explained at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I have poined Hullaballoo to this essay. Instead, he refuses to allow an opposing opinion to stand. His re-reversion is the point at which an edit-war begins. This is the point at which he should instead discuss. I didn't feel especially "stalked" by Hullaballoo, but I felt that whenever he ventured into articles under my watch, the pattern of his hyper-critical editing, bullying, and edit-warring would follow. And I found this always to be the case. Dekkappai ( talk) 02:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If this were an isolated incident, I could agree with Cyclopia's view. As I believe I've mentioned, I disagree with all TPH's AfDs under discussion, and I myself have been driven to incivility similar to what Hullaballoo shows at these AfDs over AfDs which I believed were improper. I have even been taken to WQA/AnI (mostly by Hullaballoo himself) over my sometimes gruff rhetoric. Fine. I took my lumps and tried to do better. But Hullaballoo's behavior goes far beyond "incivility". These AfDs are not part of an isolated incident of mere "incivility". Examples I've given show that for at least a year and a half Hullaballoo-- not through rhetoric, but through editing habit-- has bullied and instigated edit-wars with many editors across many different subject areas. I believe his rhetoric at these AfDs are just a small part of a pattern of bullying and harrassing which has gone on throughout Hullaballoo's career here. That in this case, I would have been on Hullaballoo's side in the AfD discussions, makes his behavior no less wrong. Dekkappai ( talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If Dekkappai is one of the two editors certifying this RfC, and the co-author, according to Nuclear Warfare's supposition, of the complaint, how, then, can Dekkappai also have an "outside view", or am I misunderstanding some terminology here? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I moved these from the project page, where commentary is not apropriate. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I only recall one encounter with HW, his highhanded "don't like this, don't like that" series of deletions. I sensed trouble. Waited a while before reverting. In a year, I don't think anyone else has taken issue with those same items. Varlaam ( talk) 23:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The edit history of David Cross seems to show Hullaballoo at it even as we speak. I'm not interested enough anymore to take a real look into how valid the edits are (naturally, as Tabercil mentions, he does make some appropriate removals occasionally-- vandalism & such), but it has all the markings of typical HW behavior: Mass-removals, then tagging for lack of sourcing. A "Hullaballoo newbie" doesn't realize that other editors are not allowed to touch his edits, and reverts. Hullaballoo then instigates his trademark warring and refusal to discuss. And why not? What will happen? Dekkappai ( talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Another content-removal/edit-warring situation was discussed at Talk:Naho Ozawa in July 2010, and Hullaballoo temporarily ceased his inappropriate blanking of the article. Now that the coast is clear, he resumes his attack. HW's obsession with removing all information about notable Japanese erotic entertainment, when combined with his incivil defense of even the most obscure country music looks like censorship based on personal bias. But then, I supposed that's what "Notability" is all about-- whether or not it was intended as such to start with. So what's next? I guess we all meet at HW's RfA? Dekkappai ( talk) 21:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
irrelevant discussion in BMKs opinion
|
---|
Maybe so, but HW responds to this attack by making c.50 diffs over the space of two hours to a wiki that Dekkappai was heavily involved in the creation and husbandry of. Which kind of makes his point: stalking and personal editing. It's hard to disagree with Dekkappai's assertion that this project is about 'game-playing'. You, of course, are guilty of the same stalking behaviour and reverts for the hell of it when slighted. Do you and HW (and others, of course) not pause to think what you're actually doing? -- 89.211.65.21 ( talk) 06:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC) BMK responds to the above (unilaterally removed within 10 minutes in the first instance) by asking for an apology (no, me either) then wikistalking previous edits, vandalising pages, reaching unfounded conclusions and, worst of all, deleting comments here saying that I am the sock of a banned user. Dekkappai's points are well made. Express even the slightest displeasure at the antics of somed editors, and watch the wrecking ball swing into action. A watertight argument for staying on an IP (or jacking it in altogether). -- 89.211.65.21 ( talk) 08:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have never been indef blocked. Quite simply, that's a lie. -- 89.211.65.21 ( talk) 08:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't care. I do care that you're vandalising pages for personal gratification though. We can edit war on these if we must. I would overwhelmingly welcome arbitration. You cannot stalk people and treat this place like your personal fief. Actually, you can, and are getting away with it, which was D's whole point. Ruining it for everyone else. Selfish, spoilt. It's also against Wikipedia policy to 3RR, stalk and act like a dick. Ring any bells? -- 89.211.65.21 ( talk) 08:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
And even while this RfC is under way, he flaunts his ability to stalk and harass editors, edit-war and bastardize articles by stalking articles I've worked on (by mere coincidence, of course) and instigating edit-wars:
This is NOT mere incivility. This is a total rejection of collaborative editing. He considers his removals sacred and collaborative editing to be a joke. And why shouldn't he? He gets his own way even when reported, as he has been repeatedly. Dekkappai ( talk) 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ab initio - I doubt that " http://xxx.xcity.jp" meets WP:RS. Making all of this stuff not worth the paper it is written on. Collect ( talk) 23:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Official site? - but the first page sure looks rather un-RS-like to say the least. Indeed, it looks likt it is intrinsically a porn site in itself. Collect ( talk) 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Hullaballo: If I called you "a frustrated, buttock-clenching old eunuch," would you bastardize and delete some more things I've started? Why just pick on the Japanese women? What about Tora-san? Between January 18 and February 1, 2010 I started articles on all 48 films in the Torasan series. Unsourced, non-notable, potential BLP-violations. Bastardize, tag and delete them all please so I can move them to a Japanese cinema project. I'd like to work on a silent film project without the threat of harassment and thuggery too, so how about: Filmography of Broncho Billy Anderson, Fatty Arbuckle filmography, The Butcher Boy (1917 film), Oliver Hardy filmography, Stan Laurel filmography and the other articles I've started on silent film? These people were all once living persons, and these are much more poorly sourced than the articles you're currently bastardizing and tagging-- they were early work-- So slash away. Hey-- how about Korean cinema? There's Na Woon-gyu-- I see someone at least did me the favor of deleting the portrait of him-- dead for over 70 years, yet a "BLP" concern, no doubt. Also Yu Hyun-mok, Song Il-gon, and all the other Korean film articles I started. Korean cinema is, you know, not really easy to source, and therefore a BLP violation. Oh, wait a minute-- this will help-- the poster to Mulberry (film) is rather suggestive, as are the posters to the entire Madame Aema and Mountain Strawberries series. (This points to an interesting correlation between the Korean Ero genre of the '80s, and the Japanese Pink films-- a subject which won't be covered here, if you can help it, right?) They clearly don't belong in "the sum of human knowledge." Kim Ki-young made some pretty risque films too. Iodo (film) has a spectacular scene of a female mudang performing necrophilia. How much more of a BLP violation can you get??? Kim Ki-young clearly doesn't deserve a Good Article-- bastardize it and then delete it please. The Noblewoman Vera Sheloga was nearly speedy-deleted for BLP concerns, but the nominator wasn't a persistent, edit-warring thug. You can get rid of it though. I have faith in you. What's the loss of an article on Rimsky-Korsakov opera matter when the Noble Woman Vera Sheloga might come back from the grave and in her sue us for BLP violations? Are zombies "Living persons"? Better safe than sorry. When in doubt, delete. Please troll through all my contributions that have anything to do with a person living or once living, and remove it all. So Wikipedia loses an editor able to work with Korean and Japanese sourcing, interested in old and obscure cinema, and who has proven willing and able to do long, hard work for the project? What's that matter when there's stalking, harassing and deleting to do. There'll be an Adminship in this for you, I'm sure. Dekkappai ( talk) 22:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant to this RfC/U, which focuses only on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and TenPoundHammer. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I took the time to put together the links you'd requested-- links I'd avoided doing at first because I thought, due to past experience here, that they'd be a waste of time. And it turns out that was a waste of time. Instead your response is that the letter of the "law" is not followed at this RfC, and so another complaint against destructive, edit-warring, abusive, non-cooperative editor should be dismissed... as have so many previous ones at other boards where we've been told to take it elsewhere... All the while we're reminded to remain "civil", not to whine or complain, and just take it. I hope this project loses every editor who does any real work, as obviously real work is not what is wanted here, but rule-making, rule-changing, rule-enforcing, game-playing, etc. Dekkappai ( talk) 15:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, in part, with Collect's assessment. However I disagree with the characterization of the problem as merely "civility" issues. TenPoundHammer has civility issues. *I* have civility issues. I wouldn't be surprised (given our differing Wiki-philosophies), if TPH and I have had incivil words with each other. Any honest-speaking editor with a strong opinion about this project-- admins included-- occasionally has civility issues. And the problem here is not TPH's AfDs-- not one of which *I*, by the way, would have supported. The problem here is much larger than this-- it is Hullaballoo's absolute refusal to discuss or compromise, and his invariable edit-warring. Just one more example: The edit histor of Maria Ozawa, August 11, 2010 shows Hullaballoo repeatedly removing a translation of a Japanese article, claiming it's a "blog" source. The edit history shows me repeatedly begging him to discuss his concerns, before finally getting sick of this bullying, and Wikipedia's tolerance for this kind of bullying, and just leaving. Hullaballoo's actions force editors to take make this decision between being fighters or contributors. To my knowledge I have never seen Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, once reverted, not re-revert. This is contrary to common-sense at a collaborative project, sensibly explained at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I have poined Hullaballoo to this essay. Instead, he refuses to allow an opposing opinion to stand. His re-reversion is the point at which an edit-war begins. This is the point at which he should instead discuss. I didn't feel especially "stalked" by Hullaballoo, but I felt that whenever he ventured into articles under my watch, the pattern of his hyper-critical editing, bullying, and edit-warring would follow. And I found this always to be the case. Dekkappai ( talk) 02:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If this were an isolated incident, I could agree with Cyclopia's view. As I believe I've mentioned, I disagree with all TPH's AfDs under discussion, and I myself have been driven to incivility similar to what Hullaballoo shows at these AfDs over AfDs which I believed were improper. I have even been taken to WQA/AnI (mostly by Hullaballoo himself) over my sometimes gruff rhetoric. Fine. I took my lumps and tried to do better. But Hullaballoo's behavior goes far beyond "incivility". These AfDs are not part of an isolated incident of mere "incivility". Examples I've given show that for at least a year and a half Hullaballoo-- not through rhetoric, but through editing habit-- has bullied and instigated edit-wars with many editors across many different subject areas. I believe his rhetoric at these AfDs are just a small part of a pattern of bullying and harrassing which has gone on throughout Hullaballoo's career here. That in this case, I would have been on Hullaballoo's side in the AfD discussions, makes his behavior no less wrong. Dekkappai ( talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If Dekkappai is one of the two editors certifying this RfC, and the co-author, according to Nuclear Warfare's supposition, of the complaint, how, then, can Dekkappai also have an "outside view", or am I misunderstanding some terminology here? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I moved these from the project page, where commentary is not apropriate. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I only recall one encounter with HW, his highhanded "don't like this, don't like that" series of deletions. I sensed trouble. Waited a while before reverting. In a year, I don't think anyone else has taken issue with those same items. Varlaam ( talk) 23:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The edit history of David Cross seems to show Hullaballoo at it even as we speak. I'm not interested enough anymore to take a real look into how valid the edits are (naturally, as Tabercil mentions, he does make some appropriate removals occasionally-- vandalism & such), but it has all the markings of typical HW behavior: Mass-removals, then tagging for lack of sourcing. A "Hullaballoo newbie" doesn't realize that other editors are not allowed to touch his edits, and reverts. Hullaballoo then instigates his trademark warring and refusal to discuss. And why not? What will happen? Dekkappai ( talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Another content-removal/edit-warring situation was discussed at Talk:Naho Ozawa in July 2010, and Hullaballoo temporarily ceased his inappropriate blanking of the article. Now that the coast is clear, he resumes his attack. HW's obsession with removing all information about notable Japanese erotic entertainment, when combined with his incivil defense of even the most obscure country music looks like censorship based on personal bias. But then, I supposed that's what "Notability" is all about-- whether or not it was intended as such to start with. So what's next? I guess we all meet at HW's RfA? Dekkappai ( talk) 21:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
irrelevant discussion in BMKs opinion
|
---|
Maybe so, but HW responds to this attack by making c.50 diffs over the space of two hours to a wiki that Dekkappai was heavily involved in the creation and husbandry of. Which kind of makes his point: stalking and personal editing. It's hard to disagree with Dekkappai's assertion that this project is about 'game-playing'. You, of course, are guilty of the same stalking behaviour and reverts for the hell of it when slighted. Do you and HW (and others, of course) not pause to think what you're actually doing? -- 89.211.65.21 ( talk) 06:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC) BMK responds to the above (unilaterally removed within 10 minutes in the first instance) by asking for an apology (no, me either) then wikistalking previous edits, vandalising pages, reaching unfounded conclusions and, worst of all, deleting comments here saying that I am the sock of a banned user. Dekkappai's points are well made. Express even the slightest displeasure at the antics of somed editors, and watch the wrecking ball swing into action. A watertight argument for staying on an IP (or jacking it in altogether). -- 89.211.65.21 ( talk) 08:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have never been indef blocked. Quite simply, that's a lie. -- 89.211.65.21 ( talk) 08:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't care. I do care that you're vandalising pages for personal gratification though. We can edit war on these if we must. I would overwhelmingly welcome arbitration. You cannot stalk people and treat this place like your personal fief. Actually, you can, and are getting away with it, which was D's whole point. Ruining it for everyone else. Selfish, spoilt. It's also against Wikipedia policy to 3RR, stalk and act like a dick. Ring any bells? -- 89.211.65.21 ( talk) 08:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
And even while this RfC is under way, he flaunts his ability to stalk and harass editors, edit-war and bastardize articles by stalking articles I've worked on (by mere coincidence, of course) and instigating edit-wars:
This is NOT mere incivility. This is a total rejection of collaborative editing. He considers his removals sacred and collaborative editing to be a joke. And why shouldn't he? He gets his own way even when reported, as he has been repeatedly. Dekkappai ( talk) 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ab initio - I doubt that " http://xxx.xcity.jp" meets WP:RS. Making all of this stuff not worth the paper it is written on. Collect ( talk) 23:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Official site? - but the first page sure looks rather un-RS-like to say the least. Indeed, it looks likt it is intrinsically a porn site in itself. Collect ( talk) 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Hullaballo: If I called you "a frustrated, buttock-clenching old eunuch," would you bastardize and delete some more things I've started? Why just pick on the Japanese women? What about Tora-san? Between January 18 and February 1, 2010 I started articles on all 48 films in the Torasan series. Unsourced, non-notable, potential BLP-violations. Bastardize, tag and delete them all please so I can move them to a Japanese cinema project. I'd like to work on a silent film project without the threat of harassment and thuggery too, so how about: Filmography of Broncho Billy Anderson, Fatty Arbuckle filmography, The Butcher Boy (1917 film), Oliver Hardy filmography, Stan Laurel filmography and the other articles I've started on silent film? These people were all once living persons, and these are much more poorly sourced than the articles you're currently bastardizing and tagging-- they were early work-- So slash away. Hey-- how about Korean cinema? There's Na Woon-gyu-- I see someone at least did me the favor of deleting the portrait of him-- dead for over 70 years, yet a "BLP" concern, no doubt. Also Yu Hyun-mok, Song Il-gon, and all the other Korean film articles I started. Korean cinema is, you know, not really easy to source, and therefore a BLP violation. Oh, wait a minute-- this will help-- the poster to Mulberry (film) is rather suggestive, as are the posters to the entire Madame Aema and Mountain Strawberries series. (This points to an interesting correlation between the Korean Ero genre of the '80s, and the Japanese Pink films-- a subject which won't be covered here, if you can help it, right?) They clearly don't belong in "the sum of human knowledge." Kim Ki-young made some pretty risque films too. Iodo (film) has a spectacular scene of a female mudang performing necrophilia. How much more of a BLP violation can you get??? Kim Ki-young clearly doesn't deserve a Good Article-- bastardize it and then delete it please. The Noblewoman Vera Sheloga was nearly speedy-deleted for BLP concerns, but the nominator wasn't a persistent, edit-warring thug. You can get rid of it though. I have faith in you. What's the loss of an article on Rimsky-Korsakov opera matter when the Noble Woman Vera Sheloga might come back from the grave and in her sue us for BLP violations? Are zombies "Living persons"? Better safe than sorry. When in doubt, delete. Please troll through all my contributions that have anything to do with a person living or once living, and remove it all. So Wikipedia loses an editor able to work with Korean and Japanese sourcing, interested in old and obscure cinema, and who has proven willing and able to do long, hard work for the project? What's that matter when there's stalking, harassing and deleting to do. There'll be an Adminship in this for you, I'm sure. Dekkappai ( talk) 22:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant to this RfC/U, which focuses only on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and TenPoundHammer. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I took the time to put together the links you'd requested-- links I'd avoided doing at first because I thought, due to past experience here, that they'd be a waste of time. And it turns out that was a waste of time. Instead your response is that the letter of the "law" is not followed at this RfC, and so another complaint against destructive, edit-warring, abusive, non-cooperative editor should be dismissed... as have so many previous ones at other boards where we've been told to take it elsewhere... All the while we're reminded to remain "civil", not to whine or complain, and just take it. I hope this project loses every editor who does any real work, as obviously real work is not what is wanted here, but rule-making, rule-changing, rule-enforcing, game-playing, etc. Dekkappai ( talk) 15:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)