Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mark Hanau

This attack is retribution for a heated debate in the 'AIDS Denialist' section and is simply an attack thus motivated. Look at the (short) history and TALK pages of the people asking for this article to be deleted (or editing it out of spite) and the true motives will become quite clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RetroS1mone

Only editorial work on Wikipedia. AIDS Denialism and attack on this article. PLEASE LOOK AT HIS EDIT HISTORY. He joined Wikipedia on 2 May 2008 simply to attack me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keepcalmandcarryon

Almost every editorial contribution is attacks on AIDS dissidents (Celia Farber for example). He joined May 1st 2008. Funny how expert these people became on Wikipedia in a week or so and how they gave each other Barnstars in their first few days.

Look at page one of his talk page. Compare the names to the AIDS denialist disscussion page debate.

THIS IS BULLYBOY TACTICS NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF WIKIPEDIA

To disagree with someone on a particular issue is fine but to then use that as a reason to attack them on non-related issues is simple bullying of the worst kind. I presented by case about the objections to the AIDS denialist article on the discussion page and then abided by the mass opinion. Is this reason to launch an organized attack on everything I have done? I hope you all reject this request no matter what your opinions are in regard to my point of view on AIDS. One thing has nothing to do with the other and I have worked hard to improve Wikipedia (1,000 edits in 6 weeks on a host of unrelated topics). Even Keepcalmandcarryon admits on his talk page the edits were good and well referenced Please reject this spite motivated assault.

This article has more complete references than almost any similar one on Wikipedia. If a higher standard was applied, I doubt Wikipedia would have more than a few hundred pages left. Aimulti (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Aimulti, you are placing your NPOV further in doubt against good faith. I gave you my reasons for checking your edits, but you continue to impugn me and speculate. I did not ask for your deletion. Along with several others, I have tried to help you improve your referencing, but you have responded with personal attacks. I strongly disagree with your characterization of my edits on AIDS as "attacks" and I respectfully ask that you please respect the collegiality of Wikipedia in any further comments. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Let your history and edits and those of the others working with you, show what the true motives are. I am happy to let the editors decide the truth of the matter. P. S. I DID NOT refer to your edits on AIDS as attacks.Aimulti (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * After the link to my user talk page above, you write, "Almost every editorial contribution is attacks on AIDS dissidents." You also imply that I gave someone a Barnstar. I did not. I received a Barnstar. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Elephant in the Room
What was brought up yesterday should be covered. Whatever the fate of this article, the bigger issue is Aimulti’s presence at WP and his stated intentions:

''I am so glad you brought up this topic. (...) If you charge in like a bull in a china shop and make edits they will last an hour or two at best. Wikipedia has a very complex structure and to achieve anything you must know it like the back of your hand. I have already managed to add dissident material with success but have spent a vast amount of time learning the inner workings and establishing credibility as an editor. I cannot discuss more here as this is an open forum but if there are four or five people willing to devote a reasonable amount of time over four or five months I can teach them how to make a radical change to Wikipedia on 'AIDS' and related topics. Changing Wikipedia would have major impact and I believe is really worth a concerted and well organized effort. If YOU are interested, add your name below and we can then either use the secure DAG forum or set up a new closed group to discuss the techniques further. I encourage you to do so but be aware it will require a long slow effort and a fair amount of time (not just posting to this (AIDS) topic). I am willing to teach but only those who are really serious about this endeavour.'' Best wishes, Paul King DAG

Paul King is Mark Hanau/Aimulti.
 * Aimulti has admitted several times on WP to being Mark Hanau. He has disclosed his phone number in a social networking effort to connect with like-minded individuals.
 * Aimulti/Mark Hanau has identified himself with Paul King by referring to a discussion at Yahoo Answers, where no Mark Hanau, but a PaulKing of DAG, conducted a campaign of medical misinformation and ran into some copyright problems. (I state again, I had no part in opposing the Yahoo Answers campaign and have never encountered Mark Hanau before.)
 * Mark Hanau also associates himself with DAG by calling his critics here "DAG Exposed trolls." DAG is the "Dissident Action Group," activists who try to distribute medically inaccurate information about HIV, such as HIV does not exist or condoms cause AIDS or cancer.
 * Mark Hanau operates A.I. Multimedia.com, whose website is registered in his name. aimultimedia.com hosts a DAG discussion forum.
 * Numerous references cite Paul King as a pseudonym of Mark Hanau/Aimulti ,,,[http:// www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/aids/2012/Mark-Hanau-Paul-King-bio-bits]
 * A pro-dissident wiki identifies Paul King as Mark Hanau.

King's/Hanau's stated work on AIDS has started already. Aimulti repeatedly vandalized the condom article by inserting material plagiarized from several sources intended to make condoms look dangerous. He blanked information on sexually-transmitted diseases at prostitution, altering the article to agree with his position that condoms are the cause of health problems and STDs are a myth. He has removed links to articles he disagrees with, like AIDS.

Beyond declared intent to subvert, Aimulti’s non-health-related contributions were riddled with problems from the start. I see that one of his articles had to be speedily deleted because of copyright violations (on photographer John Vickers). User Toddst1 has found numerous referencing problems and puffery in Hanau’s edits. User retrosimone has found further evidence of plagiarism in articles edited by Aimulti. Hanau has used WP as a means of self-advertising, promoting himself, his family, and his past connections beyond what any referenced published accounts support. He has disclosed his own contact information and those of others, including an actor he claims is his daughter. Hanau has responded to good faith criticism with startling vehemence. He has accused me of being another person he knows, of having ulterior motives for attacking him, of being a sock, and of joining Wikipedia just to attack him, a curious charge since I have been editing intermittently and rarely for a year or more and established a new username recently because I forgot my password and was too lazy to look up how to retrieve it. If that makes me a sock, then I am a sock, and I apologize.

I would support retention of the Mark Hanau article. I think the real problem is the user, Mark Hanau himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepcalmandcarryon (talk • contribs) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

SPA edits
I took out edits by 76.194.235.52 who accused me, toddst1 and keepcalm of SPA. The Los Angeles IP was never used on wikipedia before this morning, it is a real SPA. Suspected sock of Aimulti. The editor did a few edits, first added SPA accusation then tried to delete his signature and changed Aimulti's earlier comments to take out insults. RetroS1mone  talk  12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)