Well, at least he admits to what he and his team are doing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210336704QUOTE(User:Filll @ 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
Sorry, but the only reason she is on Wikipedia is she signed the petition. She is not particularly notable as an academic. If you believe she is, spend a week or two writing a proper biography for her in a sandbox and let others look at it. And yes lots and lots of people have tried to claim she did not sign and wanted us to write that she did not sign and the New York Times writer is a stupid #$%^&* for writing that she signed. And just trying to hide the fact that she signed and the NYT wrote an article about it probably is not going to fly. If this is so all-fired important to you, why are you afraid of doing any real work? Stop complaining and do some real writing.
All lies, of course. Nobody, nobody at all, is trying to claim that Picard didn't sign the petition, or that she was a "stupid #$%^&*" for doing so, and certainly not that she
wrote what she signed! (where the f*** did
that come from?). And nobody is trying to hide the fact that the NYT wrote an article that mentioned her as one of the signers, either.
We're simply saying that this shouldn't be treated as anything beyond the signing of a petition, i.e, a minor incident that shouldn't form the basis of an entire biography on the world's most heavily-scraped and -searched information site.
Anyone who takes Filll up on his offer to write about Picard in a "sandbox" is wasting their time, obviously -
his team will never stop attacking Rosalind Picard, and they will never let this end."Stop complaining and do some real writing" is the standard rejoinder for people on WP who are faced with evidence of their own abuses and have no valid counter-arguments whatsoever.