User talk:Swancookie

Welcome!

Hello, Swancookie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

MBisanzBot (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BCTBHScarling .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BCTBHScarling .jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

Hi, I'm being bold and introducing myself. My name is Christian Hejnal and I play in a band called Scarling. with my wife Jessicka. I've noticed there's been a little unnecessary mud slinging in her direction by a disgruntled person. I just wanted to put it out there that if you had any issues with any pages related to my wife, my band, our roommate Lisa Leveridge or my co-worker Rickey Goodling, myself, please don't hesitate to come to me directly. I'm happy to help.

I am new to wikipedia and currently trying to get familiar with all the rules and protocol here. I believe whole heartily in a neutral stance but also would like things written about any of the previously mentioned pages to be factual. I'm about to do an interview with a third party publication to set some things straight. Until then I just wanted to introduce myself.

take care, Xtian1313 (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! welcome to wiki! Swancookie (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Scarling.2.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Scarling.2.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Christian Joy

A tag has been placed on Christian Joy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with this. Swancookie (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP violations

Stop reinserting text without sources meeting WP:RS, overly promotional material, and quotations that aren't found on the cited sources and/or are cited to websites controlled by the article's subject. Your continuous reinsertion of this material raises serious questions as to the good faith of your editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop Blanking sourced sections! I am trying to improve this article. An Example: High Fructose is NOT a blog. It's a well respected low brow art site and states that she was a muse for the show. You keep removing it. You are constantly editing Jessicka and her husband's Christian's page. There is no doubt you have a serious bias with editing these articles.

I'd rather not deal with you. Next step is to bring in a neutral third part admin. And Not Rickey, Big Daddy or Bali.

Swancookie (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't post uncivil comments impugn the neutrality/motives of editors who disagree with you. It reinforces the impression that, if not a sock puppet, you're editing in concert with a group of individuals associated with the article subjects who have repeatedly refused to conform with Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take our own advice! "a group of individuals associated with the article subjects who have repeatedly refused to conform with Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP." Don't assume! You have a bias against Xtian 1313 yet you edit his article to no end, how is that policy? I am not a sock Puppet (accusation???) I just do not agree with you! Swancookie (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting an admin in here. I refuse to deal with you as you have a clear bias when editing this article. Swancookie (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

I need help. I need a neutral third patient administrator who is not already involved in some of the bias that is going on here. I'd prefer to deal with somebody who is well versed in LGBT issues. Swancookie (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I've converted your request for help into a request for admin help so it'll reach the attention of the right people. If you don't receive a response quickly enough, you may wish to post on the administrator's noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Given you are the subject of an ANI post, you are going to get more than enough admin eyes on your issues. --Stephen 03:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

dealing with that now. I need a third opinion. Swancookie (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

LGBT/content Question

I'd like to start a new article about a LGBT artist. The only problem is a lot of the press I have on them is in actual magazines. How does one prove notability if a lot of the person's press (40%?) is in actual gay publications/magazines not online press. What would you suggest I do? Thanks. Swancookie (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered at User talk:Allstarecho.  Frank  |  talk  22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Question/response

Copied over from my talkpage so you have another perspective to your question.

I'd like to start a new article about a LGBT artist. The only problem is a lot of the press I have on them is in actual magazines. How does one prove notability if a lot of the person's press (40%?) is in actual gay publications/magazines not online press. What would you suggest I do? Thanks. Swancookie (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you're in luck, sources do not have to be available online and many, most?, aren't. Use the template at Template:Citation#Citing journals, newspapers, magazines, or other periodicals and fill in every thing you have. Be sure to put the entire cite within ref tags like <ref> (full citation here) </ref>. Good luck! -- Banjeboi 03:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. excellent. Thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction. Before I create a new article I want to make sure the person is notable. Doing a little fact checking and wiki checking as well. Would you mind terribly to check if I'm doing this correctly? I'm going to experiment with a few other articles first. Just to get the hang of using the citation template. How would I go about citing this link? [1]

I actually have that Seconds magazine.

below is an example of what I'm doing. How would I think insert it into this article? Jessicka

Price, Simon (September 4, 2005), "Scarling. So Long, Scarecrow", The Independent, vol. The Independent, London, Uk, p. 16 {{citation}}: Text "issuse" ignored (help)

Thank so much for being helpful! Swancookie (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Independent one looks fine. The Geocities link is not as Geocities is notorious for hosting unreliable stuff. It may be a blacklisted link in which case just leave off the weblink itself and add a note to the talkpage (for future editors) that Seconds magazine text of article reprinted at [2]. In the cite itself, if the system will allow the link to stay, put a note "text of article reprinted" right after the link. -- Banjeboi 15:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Independent "link" is not fine; it's a phony citation. Despite what the text says, the link is not to the Independent's site, but to the Scarling site. The articles where Swancookie is edit-warring with me are riddled with phony citations like this, where the links don't actually go to the sources listed (which appear to be reliable), but to sources controlled by the article subjects or their friends, which fail WP:RS by large and indisputable margins. Swancookie's repeated reinsertion of these fake citations is a textbook case of disruptive and deceptive editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Independent one, IMHO is still fine. It would be better to do a google search and see if you can get the original, if it's after 2004 it's likely still online or in the internet archives but If not the cite should have a qualifier like i previous stated "text archived at Band's webpage"; if you think about it we would readily accept the newspaper cite without any internet link but it's much more convenient to have the text available. Absent any proof of wrongdoing we extend good faith the band - like so many other groups - is simply collecting media mentions in one spot. That's quite common. -- Banjeboi 19:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Be warned.User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a huge bias with the article Jessicka. I believe that he is tearing it apart in order to nominate it for speedy deletion. If you look at his talk page you'll see he's had several unresolved issues with the subject Jessicka's husband Christian Hejnal and now he is editing their articles (and any articles that mention them) mercilessly. I'm not being disruptive or deceptive, I assure you. I just want to see the article be the best it can be User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz can not say the same. [3] You can see how he over reacts asking for a block above. Swancookie (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi- I need a neutral third party on this one. I'm afraid to even start another article as User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be breathing down my neck because he has some weird issue with me. I didn't join wikipedia to be harassed and argue with aggressive editors who spout policy even when they are proven wrong. I'm trying to better.

Any help/words or wisdom would be greatly appreciated. Swancookie (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you prbably should disengage on this one for a while, just because things have gotten heated up. If you want to keep tab on things then maybe drop a note to someone neutral or at the ANI or admin board to look at see if something needs to be addressed. Swancookie, they likely mean very well but are being a bit heavy handed. This, oddly, will serve you better by helping your editing be stronger and more in keeping with policy. Seriously, there is no point adding junk that will just be removed within days/weeks anyway so it's better to make sure it's strong from the get-go. Trust me, even if you get everything right it will still be picked on and screwed with by someone so just press on and do your best. -- Banjeboi 19:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to contact Hullaballo in good faith, but he ignores me. He deletes my section on his talk page. [4] Also if you read his talk page it shows that he has issues with Christian Hejnal = User:Xtian1313. Editing Christin & his wife Jessicka's page this way is just bad form in my humble opinion.

But moving on, may I put back the citations that Hullaballoo removed? They are on the band's site but they aren't phony I own the AP the quote is from. I could scan it. LOL! Swancookie (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would just leave them alone and move on, if you left a note and they deleted it we assume they read it. Nuff said. I would also go ahead and put back in the deleted content if you feel the sourcing is fine etc. They may simply not care for the cite style but as I wrote above using a band's archive of media blurbs is acceptable. If you can link to the original articles it would be better but don't stress. -- Banjeboi 20:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Ah good to know. Seriously thanks again for walking me through this stuff. It's been hard dealing with certain editors here and I feel like the more I know, the more I can be an asset to this site.

Would you mind looking at Jessicka and Christian Hejnal???? If you give them the OK I'll feel more confident to start a few new articles here. Swancookie (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, on Jessicka I did some basic clean-up. The bisexual line isn't well worded or referenced. Wordpress (as a rule) and blogs that aren't quite reliable should be avoided. Having stated that I have no reason to dispute so I'll leave it to you to see if there are other sources for this. Websites, only one to put in the infobox should be hers, not the bands although those could be put into the External links sections. Overall the tone sounds too informal/promotional and therefore less than credible. I would address that as that will attract others to tag or change things. On Christian Hejnal, same issues plus rework the whole film career as it alludes that they've been in all those films when instead it looks like they crewed them (which isn't bad, just different). So instead of film career make it just career and explain the progression of what they did. Filmography should be ditched, that's for actors. Some of that could be woven into the career section and you could moved the entire list to the talkpage for future reference. -- Banjeboi 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Great job with the clean-up. I agree with all of your changes. I agree in the Hejnal article that filmography should just be left out. Reads better that way. There's an IMDB link, that should suffice. I'll work a little more on the Jessicka aricle. I'll remove any peacock, hopefully that will help. :)

Oh, last question (for now) I swear. What's the policy on linking from a person's .com biography? Say a biography on Jessicka.com-? There it says she is openly bisexual. Thanks 100 tiimes thanks! Swancookie (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is rather useless I'm afraid. The good news is that a person's .com page is perfect for a BLP (biography of living person) as a person is considered an expert on themselves. If she says she's bisexual on her page then we can cite that. We use caution though about repeating any exceptional claims. If she wrote, for instance, that she had the top-selling single of 2007 we'd sniff it as odd and say it was an exceptional claim needing exceptional sourcing. -- Banjeboi 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK great. I'll find that section on her .com. Does that work for bands too? If a band says they are currently recording on their.com. Is that a usable source for wikipedia? Swancookie (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's more NPOV to write - according to the band's website they started a new album project in June 2009, etc. -- Banjeboi 20:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood, I'll try adding all of that next week when I have time. Again thanks. Enjoy your weekend! Swancookie (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jeordie White

Hi, I think you have the wrong person, I only remove/revert vandalism [5], [6] & [7], I think you are looking for User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who is either removing or asking for reference for every other word within the article [8], [9], and also User:Snuppy [10]. They are the one's that seem to have a problem with the article.  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I contacted them. Thanks! Swancookie (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I hope something can be sorted out, it seems like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is attempting to udermine several articles (all connected to each other), so I've a feeling that an Admin will need to be asked for help with this, specially since adding anything back into the article will likely just lead Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removing anything re-added without question or attempt to find better sources/references.  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it will. But not because I am trying to "undermine" articles, but because WP:BLP directs users to delete material sourced from self-published blogs from biographies of living persons (except in certain cases where the article subject is the author/publisher of the blog, none of which apply here.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, It's getting really really bad. Not really sure what to do. Any advice? Swancookie (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, try that below and you may get an admin... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It didn't get an admin, it got me. But I've converted the {{help}} to {{adminhelp}} for you.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

I've responded on Talk:Jeordie White. Snuppy 01:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

adding: WP:BLP, an official Wikipedia policy, directs that all questionable, unsourced or poorly material should be deleted immediately, and that "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. Before adding or restoring material, the editor committing the edit must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm trying to make sure this article meets a basic standard. Snuppy 01:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I didn't think you were being a dick at all. What's the ruling on "blogs" here. Why are some Ok and some aren't? Just want to hear what your thoughts are.

Thanks, Swancookie (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Some blogs and other self published sources are acceptable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. That is from WP:SPS. Forgive me, but I'm nulling the template (if you need more help, just post it again). Killiondude (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

reverts

You appeared to have made your 6th revert on the article. You may wish to revert. Soxwon (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

With all respect. There's been discussion about that revision above and another editor said it's a keep. It's not o phony site nor is it a blog. Scroll above to see. Or read here [11] I'm waiting for the actual article to show back up from the newspaper the Independent. Thanks, Swancookie (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No I'm referring to Jessicka, you've now reverted 5 times, a violation of WP:3RR. Soxwon (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I'm showing you where another editor and I had a discussion about the revert. They said it should be kept. Understand I am a (newer) editor and familiarizing myself on wiki practice and policy. I appreciate your patience. I'm not a vandal.Swancookie (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, however, WP:3RR doesn't apply to vandals. Other users saying it's ok doesn't make edit-warring ok. Were you aware of WP:3RR? Soxwon (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not. Please understand I truly wasn't being a vandal. Swancookie (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You have been reported to AN/I Soxwon (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm being reported as I consulted with another editor about the revert and they agreed it should be kept. Swancookie (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See above, WP:3RR is only covered in a few cases, WP:BLP violations and vandalism being pretty much it. Soxwon (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Independent one, IMHO is still fine. It would be better to do a google search and see if you can get the original, if it's after 2004 it's likely still online or in the internet archives but If not the cite should have a qualifier like i previous stated "text archived at Band's webpage"; if you think about it we would readily accept the newspaper cite without any internet link but it's much more convenient to have the text available. Absent any proof of wrongdoing we extend good faith the band - like so many other groups - is simply collecting media mentions in one spot. That's quite common. -- Banjeboi 19:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)"

They are saying the citation is fine , this why I felt it OK to revert. ???? Swancookie (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather then report me. Perhaps you could show me exactly what I'm doing wrong?? I'm truly trying to stregnthen the article in question. I admit I don't know everything but I am no vandal. Swancookie (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR: Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. And for the record I don't agree it's legitimate, but even if you feel it is, it's not covered. You might want to read the link. I'll go ahead and take down the report, as I thought you were more experienced. My apologies. Soxwon (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you've been here a year and you've not learned WP:3RR?? Soxwon (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Still reading WP:3RR but I thought I had gotten a third opinion, no? Not trying to be annoying but I thought that's what I had done. Swancookie (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading the link now. I was here a few months got busy with school (notice the 8 months with no edits) and now am back to brush up on my editing skills. In real time only a few months on and off. I often get bogged down with work/school. Thank you. Any mentoring would be greatly appreciated. I'm really trying to do my best here. I'll get the hang of it, hopefully. Swancookie (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Still reading WP:3RR but I thought I had gotten a third opinion, no?

Not trying to be annoying but I thought that's what I had done. Swancookie (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Hello, I see that you too have run into problems with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removing content/making accusations. I had been editing the Clint Catalyst article against this user for a while and running into what look to be the same edit warring patterns as you have. I grew frustrated and took a break from Wikipedia for a while (several other editors outright left over it), but am still hoping that some conclusion can be reached here that doesn't result in the outright deletion of known, well-cited artist entries just because of one editor who insists on removing content (some of which has even been previously given admin approval). Best of luck in dealing with this issue - perhaps we can work together? - Granny Bebeb (trying to remember my login). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.36.46 (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

3RR violation at Jessicka, per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been reported to WP:AN3 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Per our dispute. I'm getting a neutral third involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Killiondude#Acceptable_References Swancookie (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Again I am asking why are you reporting me? Swancookie (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To all editors dealing with article Jessicka/Hullballoo's aggressive edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xtian1313#To_all_editors_dealing_with_article_Jessicka.2FHullballoo.27s_aggressive_edits Xtian1313 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:Blocked user check

Hello there, no worries or apologies necessary. Sometimes I have to put on the adminhat and be firm. I'm actually quite pleasant.

You can request a check at WP:SSI. Do be sure to read over what to the requirements are involving evidence and possible socks. It may take a bit to get acquainted with the process but it's better to do it properly than to malform and have it denied. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with compiling evidence as you see fit. What is important is that it use appropriately and subsequently deleted from whatever holding pen you choose once submitted. Keegan (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To all editors/ Hullaballoo situation

The Hullaballoo situation seems to be escalating, any help in this situation that provides evidence that this user is actually a blocked user would be helpful.

He's still making false claims about me [12]. He's still acting underhandedly.

"I believe that the reason why Hullballoo is reinserting a section [13] on his talk page by user:Godblessyrblackheart who has removed it now twice because they came to some sort of resolution off wiki is to try to discredit editor user:Xtian1313 whom strongly disagrees with him. Several editors have come to him via his talk page but rather in engage them in a civil manner he removes or ignores their requests. That alone shows that he is unwilling to participate in good faith editing, civil behavior, and common decency. I will continue to gather evidence against him."

My fear is if we don't act now he will somehow manipulate this situation to make it seem like he's done nothing wrong. I truly understand how utterly tedious and annoying this is but I am certain we are dealing with a much bigger issue with this editor's bad faith deceitful uncivil editing.

Thank-you. Swancookie (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As user:Keegan has pointed out, this discussion is rather errant and scattered all over the place. Right now, it is difficult for me to follow the discussion because there are bits and pieces everywhere, on various talk pages. You really need to bring this up, as Keegan says, in one central location -- a formal admin noticeboard -- and then let the rest of us know exactly where you have reported this to the admins so we can chime in with our evidence accordingly. Right now, this isn't accomplishing anything because it's scattered everywhere.

I have personally witnessed the manner in which Hullaballoo is determined to deplete the accuracy of Wikipedia. I identify three major issues with his behavior: 1.) His preoccupation with certain public figures, most notably Hollywood figures, particularly those that have a following in the gay community, and his continual deletion of information regarding them. He frequently resorts to name-calling (so-and-so is a "wannabe," "minor-league celebrity," etc.) while criticizing others who call HIM names. At the same time, he appears to have an enormous amount of time at his disposal to read said articles. I believe this is a simple psychological situation; we are likely dealing with an individual who is fascinated by Hollywood celebrity culture, possibly has certain gay tendencies of which he is ashamed, etc., and resorts to attacking celebrities and gays as a form of lashing out against his own insecurities. That is just a theory. 2.) His preoccupation with deleting factual information from articles, or, instead, his preoccupation with putting CITATION NEEDED tags randomly throughout articles at the end of virtually every sentence. While this is not strictly "against the rules," it is widely frowned upon by other editors because it is not constructive. For all the time he appears to have, why doesn't he simply CITE these facts that has feels need to be cited? The answer, of course, is that this is a form of passive aggression; he desperately wants Wikipedia not to include information that he personally doesn't like, so he does everything in his power to frustrate other editors who have written or contributed these facts to Wikipedia. 3.) The crux of the matter: Hullaballo is difficult to deal with or censure, precisely because he games the system by invoking Wiki policies to defend what he is doing. Wiki rules can be used to justify virtually anything -- it's like taking a random passage from the Bible to defend one's bad behavior. Hullaballo usually follows the letter, but not the spirit, of the rules. (Incidentally, he often DOES break WIki rules, particularly "assume good faith" and "no name calling." But I have noticed that when people try to have honest discussions with him about this, he just deletes the discussions.) He shows no concern for warnings from admins; he frequently says "I don't care what the consensus was" or "I don't care what the admins decided." He has a difficult time dealing with authority, clearly, but is a genuine expert at evading responsibility by hiding behind the very rules which he flagrantly violates. That's my analysis in a nutshell.

But again, this whole discussion is pointless until it gets brought up as an official petition to the admins to reinstate their previous ban on Hullaballoo -- this time permanently. Cubert (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur mostly with this assessment, Swancookie you have frustrated the situation, likely unintentionally, by canvassing to bring attention to the issue. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, IMHO, is the next logical step. I think it's premature for ANI but perhaps that would make sense. -- Banjeboi 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may add one thing. I didn't mean to suggest that Swancookie is doing anything wrong. Only that this will not be solved through talking about it on various talk pages; only through punitive measures taken against the disruptive editor via the admin boards.

One thing strikes me as odd, and borderline sociopathic. I have noticed, going through Mr. Hullaballoo's edit history, that he appears to have made absolutely no actual CONTRIBUTIONS to Wikipedia at all. Ever! Apparently he has never created a single article. His entire edit history consists of destructive edits (removals of information or CITATION NEEDED tags), often one-after-the-other in rapid succession, once or more PER MINUTE(!), sometimes over the course of hours. And 90% of them are related to homosexuality. I am trying to figure out what type of psychological condition would lead an individual to spend that sheer amount of time surfing through Wikipedia and rapidly deleting or tagging facts, but never actually contributing information to articles or citing things that he feels need citations. What is the motive here? What exactly is going on? What kind of person would spend SO much time doing such a thing? Why is an editor whose entire history consists of destructive edits even allowed on here any more? I think that any objective admin should conclude that there is a serious real-life COI here, perhaps even a dangerous one, that would drive such an individual to do something like this. There's something going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of, I suspect. It is simply too unbelievable that anyone other than the most disturbed homophobe would literally devote his life to something like this. His rampant preoccupation with homosexuality and pornography, particularly gay pornography, suggests that we are dealing with a disturbed, unstable, and potentially dangerous individual. It really scares me, to be honest. Cubert (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)