Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Re: Outside view by Collect
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 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)

Re: Outside view by Cyclopia
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)
 * Having personally interacted with HW in one of the edit wars you pointed out (one of the diffs is mine) I understand your concerns; but I know too little of the situation to comment about that (in particular I am unsure of the claims of hounding) while the situation described by TPH was crystal-clear. Let's say that perhaps this RfC could be on the right target but for the wrong reasons -your case is actually much stronger than the TPH one even if I feel not qualified to comment on it. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What I find so bizarre about the TPH case is that I see Hullaballoo acting much like... myself. I see him becoming angry over what he believes to be inappropriate deletions/AfDs and resorting to incivil language. I find him using arguments eerily similar to ones I've used against his overzealous deletions and AfDs... (As far as TPH goes, I see him withdrawing AfDs when it's obvious "consensus" views them as inappropriate, indicating a capacity for self-reflection and compromise I've never seen from Hullaballoo. Also, and this is a major point in my view, TPH actually creates articles and content, while Hullaballoo, to the best of my knowledge, has never contributed anything.) If this were the extent of Hullaballoo's wrongdoings-- testy language at dubious AfDs-- I'd say warn him and let him try to watch himself. But there is much more behind this, as I think I've shown sufficiently. Dekkappai (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding form
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 was never much on Wiki's home-spun bureaucracy, rules, re-definitions of the English language, etc., so I don't know. I certify the complaint as having had similar experiences with Hullaballoo. But since my experiences are different incidents I moved it to "Outside view" a while ago. I don't know which is correct. When it was lumped under TPH's statement it seemed to be as pointedly ignored as a fart during a sermon, so I thought shifting things around might help. Whoever knows best about these things is free to fix it. Dekkappai (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Varlaam
'''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)
 * When I think of HW, I think of Richard Dreyfuss in The Goodbye Girl, "I don't like the panties hanging on the rod", as he pulls down each pair of offending panties. Same thing with other editors' careful locutions. Varlaam (talk)
 * Although HW seems to have issues with a different item of feminine intimate apparel... Dekkappai (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Another situation as we speak
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)

And another
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)


 * By the way, Hullaballoo-- it's not because of constipated sacks of shit like you that I've left the project. It's because, this now being a project about game-playing rather than content-building, impotent assholes like you are not just tolerated, you are rewarded here. And the same goes to the shithead who "redacts" this bit of truth while allowing knuckle-dragging prigs like Hullaballoo to bastardize any article on a subject on which they have no knowledge or interest. Dekkappai (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that was pretty counter-productive, don't you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * (ec)Just for the record, this editor is the "editor from Qatar" who has a long-term problem with HW, dating from the time was he was indef-banned on evidence presented by HW. He's been continuously socking using various IPs. This is his latest, before that was User:89.211.116.220, User:78.101.227.119 and User:78.101.170.55 -- I don't know how many more, for all I know he's been socking since he was blocked. Those who read the AN/I report which immediately preceded his RfC will recall him as the editor who claimed to have been "hounded" by HW into editing via IP, but refused to give the name of his former account to USer:Daedalus969, who was standing up for him in the discussion, but who eventually collapsed the thread because the IPs claims about HW could not be verified. If was this interaction that the editor from Qatar derived his dislike of me, since i looked over his edits and made some corrections and reverted some that weren't in line with policy. This, in his eyes, is "stalking" - although I don't see how the editor can be stalked when he hops IPs so frequently. He just doesn't like people reverting his edits, I guess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You reverted some erroneously - Commonwealth Pool, Untraceable - and that I didn't like, no, because it smacked of stalking silly 'revenge' attacks. Hard to come to any other conclusion. I have no objection to reverts being made to my edits if they are wrong. How would you say you react to criticism, generally? Launching straight into the 'offending' user's edits seems to be a common starting point. You've done it three times now with IPs I have used. It's pathetic, and pathetic that you can actually get away with it. Half a day I've wasted on you and the Royal Commonwealth Pool. HALF A DAY. Seems you are not the only one whose skin has been got under. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, the IPs comment on HW is clarified by their history, and his comment about me is irrelevant to this RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 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 believe you, but in any case you are an editor with a named account, and yet you edit using a series of IP account, thus avoiding accountabiliy and scrutiny, which is against Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 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 five six seven eight? a dozen? more
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)
 * 1) Hitomi Kudo
 * 2) Hitomi Kobayashi
 * 3) Saori Hara
 * 4) Mayu Kotono
 * 5) Milk Ichigo
 * Have you tried creating a wider discussion on the use of that sort of reference in a BLP instead of focusing on the editor you're in dispute with. i.e. a content RFC or similar notice board discussion.  It looks to me like HW sincerely believes these sources are inappropriate to use in a BLP.  I'm not seeing any clear discussion on the content question.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (I've added this to the main page as a comment.)--Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The time for that is long gone. Had HW acted like a collaborating editor rather than a thug and bully when I first encountered him last year, I'd have discussed and compromised, as I have done with many editors throughout my four years here, the over 600 articles I've created, and the numerous others I've improved. My edits to the five articles above were merely to demonstrate HW's invariable behavior-- mass deletion, tagging, and reverting without discussion. My history with HW and editors like him has convinced me that contributors are valued less than bullies and destroyers. I am just one of the many contributors driven off by this thug. Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it's inaccurate at best to portray this as a dispute only between myself and Hullaballoo. Besides the numerous examples I've given on the main RfC of similar disputes with other editors, "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors" shows another in which I was not involved. Which side was in the "right" policy-wise is irrelevant. It is the edit-warring, refusal to discuss and refusal to compromise which created the situation. I became involved in the discussion, leading to the targeting, AfD'ing and now bastardization of several articles which I either started or worked on. Dekkappai (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Take thug out of your vocabularly. NPA applies to users we're in disputes with.  Which side is right is always relevant in regards to BLP's.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "encyclopedia" is not damaged in any way by my calling a thug a thug. It is bastardized by a thug mass-removing sourced information and spewing tags all over articles. "NPA?" You've got to be fucking kidding me. Jesus, I should have left this madhouse long ago. Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't want that info removed how about you get wider consensus that the edits belong. By solving the content issue aside from the individual dispute.  What word should I use for someone who's been advised on how to solve the problem but won't take the steps to do so.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * CL, perhaps the word you are looking for is "ex-editor". I have left this project because of Wiki-community's tolerance for harassment, bullying, edit-warring when it's on the side of content removal. Your advice on how to "solve the problem" with HW is laughably inappropriate given the overwhelming evidence of this editor's absolute refusal to compromise or work with those with whom he disagrees shown by TPH and myself. I am now happily and prolifically contributing very well-sourced content at another project. After only a few months, our coverage of Japanese cinema-- all Japanese cinema, not just the films Anglo-prudes approve of-- is already better than it is here, because we work on content rather than playing online grab-ass with each other, as thugs like HW do at Wikipedia. Who says I want that or any other material saved or removed? I have always bent over backwards to make compromises here, as I know this is a collaborative project. I could not have contributed as much as I have in as many subject areas, with two GAs and an FA, etc., had I not done so. I might very agree to have it removed in a discussion with someone who demonstrates interest in the subject and in writing a good article. Or even a good article on any subject... Where is HW's sourced content which he so arrogantly demands from others? Where is his constructive work? Hullaballoo's thuggery is all the more destructive in that not only does he drive away contributors, he absolutely refuses to add any content or sourcing himself. Further, he is now spreading lies about my editing history, claiming that I reject the concept of "Reliable sources" when I have worked long and hard on sourcing an extremely difficult and previous to my work, totally under-sourced area-- Japanese adult entertainment. HW's mocking of English by Japanese-speakers in this same post shows the level of arrogance, bigotry and snobbery this thug spreads around the project with impunity. And if anyone gives a fuck-- he's stalked me to another article and made about two dozen removals so far. "Thug" is too mild a word for an "editor" who is so destructive at a collaborative project. This impotent, destructive "editor" should be banned. Dekkappai (talk) 22:14, 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)
 * As we all no doubt know, for many years Shintōhō used xcity as its official homepage. No, not that Shintōhō, the other one, you know. So if xcity is not a "reliable" enough source for information on Japanese AVs and erotic cinema for the Wikipedia community, then Wikipedia community should just have the fucking balls to admit it's censored and biased. Dekkappai (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the English equivalent of xcity that is regarded as a reliable source? It look like AEBN.net or Hotmovies.com, which are the two major VOD providers in English and are also the official host of several studios. However those two sites are not accepted as reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no English equivalent, and the belief that there must be indicates some of the bias at work here. Shintoho is a major independent studio which has been producing Pink films (again, no Anglo equivalent) since the earliest days. (Possibly 1962, the year the genre was begun-- by Okura-- I'm not sure, don't have my references with me.) Shintōhō, yes, that Shintōhō, one of the major studios of Japan-- that's the major studios, I'm not talking about "porn"-- went bankrupt in 1961, and Okura and the new Shintōhō came out of that. A major Pink-film director won the US Academy Award for Best Foreign Film last year. He started at Shintōhō, stayed there for years and made many pink classics there. To equate "Pink film" or either of these studios with Anglo-porn is biased and completely wrong. There is much overlap between AV and Pink film personnel, and AV/Pink performers regularly become mainstream celebrities. Again, no US/Anglo equivalent at all. That Shintōhō, a company which has been distributing films nationally for 50 years, would use xcity as a homepage says something. And to try to compare it to some US porn site is ridiculous. Dekkappai (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was trying to get you to elaborate on the slant of the bias. Whether it's an English vs. Japanese bias or just a general bias against porn or erotic films in general. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement below should give you an idea, and the attempt to turn the RfC on me is appreciated-- don't think it isn't. But bias? How about Hullaballoo's scoffing at my arguments for the existence of sourcing for older Japanese films, but the near-impossibility of finding those sources online, due to the notorious absence and removal of Japanese sources from the Internet. And yet he admits the possibility of "print coverage that can't be readily ound online" for a US song (in English, by far the dominant language on the Internet). How about "official sites" being unacceptable for information on films and videos from a studio's official site, but, according to Hullaballoo, just fine for US drive-ins? Bias. Edit-warring. Harassment... There were questions in my mind over whether Hullaballoo stalked editors, but that has been more than answered here. There is no question that he has been stalking my edits during this RfC and destroying as much as he can. This is the Wikipedia you guys made and you want. It's not my idea of "The sum of human knowledge". It's my idea of schoolyard playground bullying. Dekkappai (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm trying to figure out if HW's actions are justified by policy. Even though it's better to have independent sourcing, of course official sites are fine to describe the films and videos as long as they're done in a non-promotional way. So you're telling us that he is edit warring over info about a Shintōhō movie sourced to the official Shintōhō site? I want to confirm that xcity is Shintōhō's official site because it's not apparent here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this behavior has gone on so long, and I'm so disgusted by it that I'm not devoting much time to backing up these claims. I've backed up similar claims repeatedly only to be ignored, and HW to go on his merry way. (Also, I think in the book, Jasper Sharp gives xcity as the studio's offical site, but Google isn't proving it for me. I'll check the paper book later.) I was using Shintōhō's use of xcity as their official homepage to bolster xcity's "reliability". Over 60 (last I checked) other studios-- mostly video-- also use the site. So it's not just a random retailer. Here's the Jun 07, 2002 archive of Shintoho's front page at xcity. "あなたは18歳以上ですか？" = are you over 18? Click "はい" only if you are over 18, and you'll be rewarded with a listing of pink selections from Shintōhō's catalog. And this front page from July 28, 2008 shows the company used the site for several years, as well as a much-improved site, including an English translation-- though in the broken-English of the sort HW mocks. Every removal that I've looked at describes only the film/video-- e.g., release date, plot, director-- not personal biographical information. Typical removals from different articles: "In December she released Nasty Female Teacher, another of her purely fictional videos. This video, filmed by a director using the pseudonym Hattori Hanzo, has Kobayashi playing the role of a female teacher at an all-male school." "In another video with a mystery theme, Ugly Dream: The Fate of a Young Wife (July 2004), Ozawa plays the role of a newlywed woman who constantly dreams of being raped.", and HW removes citation to "and then moved to the Alice Japan label in December where she made the other four" and replaces it with a "fact" tag-- to make sure the original editor looks like he just made up the stuff, I suppose. This last one also removes video theme description sourced to the offical site. These are all removed with "advertising copy from a video vendor is not an acceptable source for a BLP". Dekkappai (talk) 19:53, 17 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)
 * and another article I've worked on is targeted. However "civilly" or not one wishes to put it, there is no question that during this RfC, Hullaballoo has been stalking my edits and removing as much sourced content as he can get away with. So we learn, I guess, that not only does one not revert Hullaballoo's destruction, one does not criticise him either. Dekkappai (talk) 21:11, 18 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)
 * Dekkappai, I'll be perfectly blunt. You're not doing your case any favours with all this sarcastic whinging. Yes, it does appear to me that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a surly edit warrior who seems allergic to compromise and collegial editing, who responds to attempts at communication by remaining silent but trawling through the other editor's contributions looking really hard for something to object to, and who may very well be carrying out sneaky censorship in the guise of BLP concerns. He supposes that because primary or non-independent sources are no good for establishing notability they are also useless for supporting factual claims, and is wrong in that supposition. But your passive-aggressive moaning do nothing to paint you and your contributions in a more positive light. Reyk  YO!  03:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read through this twice looking for the helpful advice, Reyk. All I see is your agreeing with my assessment of HW's behavior, and that I should shut the fuck up. My irritating "whining" takes place on talk pages-- which should all be deleted as far as I'm concerned. HW's destructive edit-warring takes place in the mainspace. This bothers no one but me? Dekkappai (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not telling you to shut up. My issue is not with what you are saying but with how you are saying it, and I'm suggesting that you phrase what are perfectly reasonable points in a way that is more likely to be taken seriously. This is, I think, an excellent way to get your point across. The long, bitter post where you sarcastically invite HW to delete, censor and vandalize a whole bunch of your stuff is more than a little over the top and I think it detracts from what you've been saying previously. I get that your negative interactions with HW have been going on for a long time, and that even now that there's an RFC on him nobody seems to be paying much attention. If I were in your shoes I would probably be seething myself. But please understand that becoming increasingly hysterical will not help very much. There is a very real risk that an uninvolved admin will come along and think "Wow, this Dekkappai person's really flipping out" and, instead of seeing a complaint of several good-faith editors against one problematic one, will perceive a bitchfight between two problematic ones. I don't think that's what you want. I'm sorry my earlier advice was obscure. I hope I've been clearer this time and that you'll take this advice in the good spirit in which it was intended- whether you agree with it or not. Cheers, Reyk  YO!  05:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken, not that I wasn't aware of it already. It's just frustration at how long this has gone on, and with so many other editors. What seems to happen is the other side gives up, and HW goes on the same. (I see he did get blocked for warring once.) Bringing him to ANI, etc. doesn't seem to do any good. So the choices seem to be three: Join in the edit war; rant and whine; or give up and let him have his way. Dekkappai (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by Cube lurker
Completely irrelevant to this RfC/U, which focuses only on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and TenPoundHammer. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  04:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Morbidthoughts response
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 asked you whether "he is edit warring over info about a Shintōhō movie sourced to the official Shintōhō site?" and you gave me several links plus an explanation that didn't answer that question directly. I looked at the links and it seems like, yes, xcity was (still is?) Shintōhō's website host, but that doesn't mean that the VOD site is a proper reliable source for other studios or even Shintōhō's movies if xcity is not currently their official site. As for ignoring rules, I believe that doing this in the context of trying to discipline another user would be improper. I believe in proper due process in this type of scenario even if it inconveniences your end goal. Should this RfC fail to accomplish anything (and it probably won't as Testales pointed out, TPH hasn't even put up a desired outcomes and HW is not even bothering to respond), it's on to the next step which is either mediation or as a last resort arbitration. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Morbid, you asked me several questions, each of which I answered, and to each of which you replied "No" and asked another question.
 * Here, I'll save you some time:
 * No, ... Dekkappai (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)