Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-01/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Where is the dispute?
Jessicka and Clint Catalyst, as well as others.

Who is involved?
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)
 * Good faith editors: User:Dogtownclown User:Doktor Wilhelm User:Granny Bebeb User:Swancookie User:Tallulah13 User:Cubert User:Xtian1313
 * Policy editors: User:Bali ultimate User:Bigdaddy1981 User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz User:Ricky81682

What is the dispute?
I believe 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, Bands , Artists  and even Language ) 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), 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 ) 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 ). 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. 

What would you like to change about this?
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.

How do you think we can help?
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.

Mediator notes
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)
 * (not sure if I'm meant to comment here?) would it be best to take this to RfC? I brought this issue to MedCab because it seemed like the least formal of the options I had been advised to follow?  Doktor  Wilhelm   23:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can comment wherever - we don't care ;-)
 * RFC is an option, but that can be extremely stressful. If you could point me to an article that all the parties are participating in at this moment, I'll be glad to help. But if there's no underlying content dispute (there probably is, though), there's not much I can do. --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:45, 2 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)


 * side note user:Cubert is now also involved.

Swancookie (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * user:Xavexgoem, it would be extremely helpful if you point us in the right direction of where to file a formal conduct dispute. We believe that user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's behavior amounts to an extreme case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, in addition to repeated violations of WP:AGF, WP:3RR, and WP:Wikilawyering. In fact, he assumes bad faith so frequently that he has taken to calling anyone who disagrees with him a "sock," "vandal," etc.  When, in reality, there is mounting evidence that he is a sock of a banned user.  Again, any pointer in the right direction for where to file a conduct dispute would be helpful.  Many of us simply do not have the time for lengthy, difficult processes. There has GOT to be a relatively straightforward way for the admins to take a cursory look at his continued hounding of any and all gay-friendly editors, and come to the conclusion that we are dealing with a major real-life COI. Wiki shouldn't be this difficult. His abuse and harassment are too much for many of us to take; I, for one, simply do not have time to police articles 24/7 to make sure he is not destroying them over and over again. He seems to have no job and unlimited time, 24 hours a day, to engage in massive edit wars, in which the other party almost always surrenders because it is simply not worth it. Cubert (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I am now virtually certain that "Hullaballoo" is actually several users operating simultaneously. A look at his edit history makes this particularly obvious. "He" is on Wikipedia non-stop, virtually all day every day, and during that entire time, he makes edits at the rate of approximately once per minute. Any edits made on or by editors or articles on his "hit list" are almost instantaneously reverted by him, at all hours. The guy would have to literally never sleep, eat, go to the bathroom, or do ANYTHING in life other than constantly patrol Wikipedia. His history reveals that he also has the super-human ability to edit multiple articles simultaneously at a rate that would be physically impossible for a single user. For example, he will remove a particular phrase that he dislikes in the middle of, say, "Jodie Foster"; then within one minute, he will be making an unrelated deletion of an uncited sentence on "Clint Eastwood"; a minute later he will be removing an unsourced phrase deep within another celebrity article, etc. He would have to be speed-reading at an ungodly rate to be able to find, identify, and edit these sentences buried deep within lengthy articles at such a super-human rate. All the while, continually monitoring the pages edited by his "enemies" and reverting their edits; while also continually monitoring his user talk page and deleting discussions there within seconds after they are posted. This has GOT to be multiple individuals. Any suggestions on where such a thing can be reported? Is there a Wiki rule against this? Cubert (talk) 01:25, 5 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)

Administrative notes
Has this been brought to the incidence noticeboard? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)