Talk:Francesco Carotta/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Text by blocked Populares (talk · contribs) deleted

Populares, are you the editor from Kabel Baden-Wuerttemburg who has been posting here? Your language and approach is identical. --Rbreen (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Populares was warned enough times, now another Admin has blocked him and I am removing his personal attacks. Again. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, we've witnessed an administrative demonstration of power as with the "protection" of the article; thanks Bundy, for your kind warning. Can we now constructively return to the matter in hand? After all, it is the task of all of us Wikipedians to see to it that articles contained in this Free Encyclopedia adhere to encyclopedical standards and not those of the yellow press, isn't it? 'Free' should not stand for 'free of correct facts', 'free of truth(fulness)' or for that matter 'free of ethical restraints'. One would think we all, at least those of good will among us, agree on that. Now it happens to be the case, if not by willful disruptive tendentious editing then by negligence, that in its current state the article Francesco Carotta is full of errors of all sorts and easily verifiably so, some of which were mentioned in the previous, now "deleted" comment. Especially the section on the "Dutch media controversy" is a complete distortion of the real events, for instance, the review of Peter Veldhuisen was not related at all to the activities and pronouncements of van Hooff. This section needs a thorough revision, or maybe the best thing to do would be to just delete it, since it does not provide any information on the theory and might be of interest only to the yellow press. Furthermore, we the Populares, the People's Front of Rome so to speak, hope that it is not considered a personal attack if we dare to ask the reputable user Rubenstein what exactly he thinks it is that qualifies him to act as the expert for and supervisor over this particular article. If User:Slrubenstein does not deem us worthy of an answer, as has been the case a few times on this page, maybe other editors or just readers could try to help us understand. In any case, we fail to see why Slrubenstein's arbitrary words and deeds should carry any special weight for the decent normal Wikipedians. We also don't understand why there seems to be so little opposition to what appears to be his self-arrogated authority. So in closing we ask an unbiased and honest administrator—there certainly must be one around here—to remove the editing protection from the article so that some much needed reasonable work can be done by knowledgeable and sincere editors. In order to prevent tedious unfruitful edit wars we suggest discussing changes to the article on this talk page first. — Populares (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to the way it is edited, Wikipedia cannot use truth as a criterion. (This is to your advantage, although I am sure you don't believe it.) It seems that WP:TRUTH may apply in this situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ha, very funny. Then use verifiability, if you prefer that. —Populares (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence in the article is: “When a few academics were asked for their opinion in a short article of the Leiden University newspaper, they backed Van Hooff's position.[24]” Besides the fact that other academics in MARE back Carotta, the sentence as it is written now, needs a clarification. Two academics indeed “back” van Hooff in the unacademic approach of neglecting Carotta’s discovery by not reading it: OK. But being a christian and an atheist they have fundamental different opinions about the historical Jesus. The are not as unisono as it wiki-looks-like. Van Hooff, as an atheist, also supports the position of the historical Jesus. (vpro 11– 4 – 2004) So, who is backing which position? You see: it is much more complicated than the sentence solo and the article suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.239.7 (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)



@Hans Adler, truth and/or verifiability

Let's talk about truth and/or verifiability. You had corrected the name "Stadtzeitung" we have in note #4 of this article into "Stattzeitung", because only the latter was verifiable, you said. Then, by chance, somebody found out the link to the "Stadtzeitung für Freiburg" and the erroneous correction could be reverted. Notice that if there had been no documentation of the "Stadtzeitung für Freiburg" online, but only, say, in a press archive in Freiburg, or if nobody had made the effort to verify the verifiability, the error would not have been detected, and the "truth" would now be, erroneously, "Stattzeitung". A beautiful mistake, by the way, very evangelical, being of the same sort as those we can find in the manuscripts of the Gospel.  ;-)

But let us apply this to another case, take Anton van Hooff, who is in charge to turn King's evidence for "pseudo-science", "severe methodological flaws" and "factual errors". Of course, he has written this, among several name-callings, so this is verifiable. But can we take it seriously? If we look closer we see that the first accusation of van Hooff towards Carotta was to not have taken into account the well known Tacitus-passage about Nero and the "christians". But since Carotta had treated it in detail, van Hooff was exposed, because he had shown that he had attacked a book without having read it, so that he himself was convicted of the "severe methodological flaws" and "factual errors" he tried to impute to other people. The subsequent escalation with the accusation of "pseudo-science" was only his embarrassing attempt to divert from the lack of professionality he had shown. This, too, can be verified. The question is then: Which verification is relevant?

Van Hooff is refered to as a "Senior lecturer of Ancient History and Teacher Trainer for Classics at Nijmegen University, the Netherlands" in the link given in note #17. But we see that at the University of Sofia he is also called "Professor Associate". Looking on the Internet we can verify that he is called a "professor" on several websites. Looking closer we can also verify that he was never a professor, and is by now a teacher in a secondary school, as he himself stated in a newspaper article. If we look to the list of publications he is giving there, we see that he is speaking of "numerous books and articles" but specifies only one title. Modesty or showing-off?

Van Hooff being a notorious polemicist, can his accusations be taken seriously? Nobody does it in The Netherlands (why is there no article about him in the Dutch WP? – The only Antoon van Hooff listed there is a zoo director, who was ashamed of the homonymy), but he is taken seriously here, in the English WP where most "judges" do not even understand Dutch. Why? Because it is so stated in the German WP already? If we take a look at the history there, we can verify that somebody had first put the article in the category "Pseudowissenschaft" (pseudo-science), but then, this being not allowed because libelous, they "discovered" "Van Hooff", taking him as "proof", without examining his credibility, happy to have the possibility to maintain their libelous allegation in an appearance of legality: it is "only" a quotation! ;-)

So much about verifiability and truth. The question of Pilate, BTW. — Populares (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that WP:BLP applies here also. It may be the case that Van Hooff is now a high school teacher, see [1]
But it wasn't that long ago that he was a university lecturer. [2] says "

1991-1995: Secretary of Euroclassica, the European Federation of Associations of Classical Teachers 1988-1994: President of the Association of Classicists in the Netherlands

TEACHING EXPERIENCE since 1976: teaching under- and postgraduate courses in ancient history since 1973: teacher trainer 1966-1973: teacher of classical languages and ancient culture at secondary schools

PUBLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AREA

Numerous books and articles on Roman imperialism, Caesar, Polybius, ancient bandits, old age in antiquity, suicide (From Autothanasia to Suicide, London 1990) and the Spartacus tradition (Dutch book appeared 1993). Dr. van Hooff is co-author of textbooks for history, ancient culture and Latin. He co-designed and presented a television course on Latin. Dr. van Hooff writes for several Dutch newspapers and takes part in public discussions on radio and television as well."

And in a book [3]

Anion J. L. van Hooff, PhD, is a senior lecturer in ancient history and teacher training in classics at Nijmegen University, the Netherlands. He was president of the Association of Classicists in the Netherlands from 1988 to 1994 and secretary of Euroclassica, the European Federation of Associations of Classical Teachers from 1991 to 1995. He has published several books and numerous articles on Roman imperialism, Caesar, Polybius, ancient bandits, old age in antiquity, Greco-Roman self-killing {From Autothanasia to Suicide. 1990), and the Spartacus tradition (in Dutch, De vonk van Spartacus, 1993; an English version. Spark of Spartacus, is in preparation). He is the coauthor of numerous textbooks on history, ancient culture, and Latin.

Clearly he is credible. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

When one tries to find "the several books and numerous articles" apart from his work on suicide not much if anything shows up. Yes, he is called a Professor Associate on that webpage, but he never was a (full) professor and he actually currently is a school teacher. And he is clearly not credible, simply because he publicly decried a book he hadn't read, inventing imaginary faults in it and failing to make a single valid point of criticism. He furthermore used words on the author of the book he hadn't read which were and are regarded as libelous by many. That is not the behavior of a credible person, let alone a respectable, credible academic. — Populares (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, if you are saying "Clearly [van Hooff] is credible", aren't you then also implicitly saying that Piñero, Canfora, Kavoukopoulos, Simon, Rodríguez Pascual and others who all are/were real professors are not credible? Their evaluation of Carotta's work and that of the "Professor Associate" can't be valid at the same time. —Populares (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you really suggesting that we can't use conflicting opinions becaus they 'can't be valid at the same time'? Wow. Next question, whose opinion do I take more seriously on van Hooff, yours or the colleagues who thought he was worthy of holding various positions, the editors who published his work, etc? Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not suggesting anything. Rather I am clearly saying that you can't use "opinions" of people who don't know what they are talking about, people who just love to hear themselves speak and see their names mentioned in the media. Van Hooff's general scientific merits, if indeed he has any, are not the question here. Of course, you can and should use all available serious qualified statements, but such statements should have substance and should be related to the subject they refer to, i.e. such statements should be made by experts who took the trouble to read and study what they are commenting on. Van Hooff does not meet these criteria, the above named professors do. — Populares (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I take it that "people" in your second sentence refers to Carotta? --Hans Adler (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. It refers to van Hooff and the likes of him. — Populares (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia take Van Hooff more serious as a scientist than he does himself? He writes: ‘Most of my activities have little to do with science: newspaper columns, schoolbooks, teachers training, general lectures ancient history and lectures for highly diverse public.’ In: Henk Procee e.a, Bij die wereld wil ik horen ( Boom 2004) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.239.7 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not relevant. He's a reliable source according to WP:RS. Right or wrong, publicity-seeker or whatever, doesn't change that. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
He is a reliable source for what? For bullshit? Every single one of his "accusations" such as "pseudo-science", "severe methodological flaws" and "factual errors" has been refuted. No one takes him seriously not even he himself—except some smart-alec Wikipedians, it seems. — Populares (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you trying to see how close you can get to the line without being blocked? I suggest you re-read WP:AGF again (I assume you have read it). Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to make it clear to you that a person who made defamatory comments about a book he had not studied cannot under any reasonable standards be considered a reliable source on the subject matter. — Populares (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
According to Van Hooff himself (Skepter 15 (4) 2002), he did make a serious effort to read the book at some point. "Van Friesland keeps reproaching me for the fact that I did not take the trouble to study the entire book. Well, I did – more or less – when the Dutch edition appeared in November. But the work is such a torture to the common sense that Martin Ros (a book reviewer, red.), too, quit after twenty pages. Paul Cliteur was honest enough towards me to admit that he had read only half of the book when he proclaimed the gospel according to Carotta in Buitenhof."[4] Iblardi (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Iblardi quotes Van Hooff and that only proves that Van Hooff had to defend himself when it came out that he had not read the book. The fact that he tries to defend himself by claiming that others did not read it either, amounts to a confession.
And he admits it: "Well, I did – more or less – when the Dutch edition appeared in November." But the polemic of Anton van Hooff against Thomas von der Dunk and Carotta started in April and is already documented in Historisch Nieuwsblad – Number 5/6 · july/august 2002 · p.8 by Liza van der Veen: [5]
Thus by his own account he had not read the book yet, which until November was only available in German, when he began his polemic and his insults in April, and he still had not read a line by the time of the Buitenhof broadcast (December 1st, the Dutch edition had just appeared on November 28th), when Cliteur had already read "half of the book". Quod erat demonstrandum. Thank you, Iblardi. Note that afterwards, according to his own account, he also read it only "more or less" — i.e., more less than more, as one saw. — Populares (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your point being..? First he had not read the book, then he did, "more or less". Sorry that it did not change his position. Iblardi (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The point being that he lied, that he defamed Carotta without having read a single line of his work, and afterwards when he allegedly had read it "more or less" continued making false accusations and insults. Someone like that can not possibly be a reliable source. That's the point, Iblardi, maybe if you try hard you can get it. — Populares (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Not "a reliable source" on what exactly? Iblardi (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cliteur writes: "The method of Van Hooff is as follows: He gets in touch with someone via e-mail and then in a public document freely paraphrases what you allegedly replied to him."Paul Cliteur, Modern Zealotism, in: De Vrijdenker, june 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.239.7 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And the saga continues. ;-) Cliteur's main concern seems to be that Carotta's book, which he thought contained interesting ideas, was never taken seriously by the academic world, while on the other hand his own "hyperbolic column" about the book, as he calls it, was taken too seriously by Van Hooff. But what would you expect? If Carotta wanted to be taken seriously by the academic world, why hasn't he published a single article on matters of classical history/philology/archeology in any peer-reviewed scholarly magazine before? Instead he directly went to the greater, less critical (for less informed) public, knowing that by doing so he would make himself vulnerable to accusations of sensationalism and running the risk of being placed on a par with Von Däniken and Velikovsky. Why hasn't he tried to gain any credibility as a classical scholar on beforehand? Iblardi (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your saga is continuing, Iblardi. An article of Carotta was published also in a journal of classical history, Quaderni di Storia in 2003, i.e. almost at the same time as the Dutch edition. Considering that such journals have long waiting periods, it was quite early. But you are here only trying to divert from the fact that Van Hooff criticized the book without having read it and indelicately distorted the words of Cliteur, telling us, that the choice of the publishing house misled the poor van Hooff. Are you really pretending that Bertelsmann and Random House do not publish anything of value?
But how could a genius like Van Hoof be misled by the publishing house? The answer seems to be: He himself is a reader of Van Däniken and Velikovsky, and knowing nothing else he thought a priori it must be the same. — Populares (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is something strange with this publication in Quaderni. A reference to this site was given as proof of it. It looks genuine. Yet the publisher itself does not mention Carotta's article in the summary on their own website, [6] whereas all the other articles, i.e. those by Pintaudi, Fantasia, Camassa, Foro, Longo, Villani, Merendino and Fabre, are listed. Is it strange that that looks suspicious to me? Iblardi (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, there is a small image of the front page showing the content of the issue. I cannot see anything that looks like "Il Cesare incognito – da Divo Giulio a Gesù". Can you? Iblardi (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop bullshitting around, Iblahblahrdi. There are several sources for the article, including Google Books, which is a fucking scan! —85.179.137.182 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your abusiveness is very persuasive, anonymous. Then again, why did the publisher not list this article on its site, as it did for all the other articles in that volume? That is a question that needs to be resolved. Iblardi (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That's probably just an oversight. Best thing would be if you, Iblardi, told the publisher about this lapsus so that he can correct it. — 91.89.169.158 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's strange. There is a more complete table of contents here, showing that there is in fact an article by Carotta on pages 357–376, between "Recensioni" and "Rassegna bibliografica". It doesn't look like the normal place for peer-reviewed publications at all. Moreover, this snippet view on Google Books suggests that the article was published with a certain degree of framing. In short: I don't think it was peer-reviewed. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean van Hooff didn't have a look at it? Just joking. Again, ask the publisher before engaging in moot speculations. Please let us know what you find out. 91.89.169.158 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Look, in cases such as this, there are certain markers which, when combined, will suggest to any professional (such as Van Hooff and the others) that they are dealing with a special kind of literature. If this is the case, most will not bother to read the entire book. Such markers are:
If this is really suggested to any professional how do you explain that professionals such as Piñero, Canfora, Kavoukopoulos, Simon, Rodríguez Pascual and others did not recognize those markers? — Populares (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The author proposes a spectacular theory which, if right, would result in a paradigm shift within the scientific fields involved.
  • However, he is unknown as a scholar. He addresses a general public that has only limited knowledge of the subject rather than his "colleagues". The public tends to be impressed by his erudition, which is displayed in an elaborate use of classical sources (as, for instance, Velikovsky does).
  • The author states that there is something terribly wrong with our understanding of the past. This is due to the fact that the true story has somehow become extremely distorted by some kind of human failure on an massive scale. The subject itself has allegedly been made into a myth, a god, or something supernatural. (Cf. Velikovsky: "Trauma has oblitterated the memory to a terrible natural disaster, which is why we have no realistic historical accounts." Von Däniken et alii: "People could only explain those extremely advanced aliens by making them into gods.")
  • Two widely separated, well-known historical individuals are said to be really the same individual. The similarities are too many to be coincidental. The evidence is presented as overwhelming. (Cf. Velikovsky fusing Ramesses III and Nectanebo I, or Hattusilis III and Nebukadnezar (not sure, but I think those were the ones - I actually read those); Carotta fusing Julius Caesar and Christ.)
Carotta seems smart enough to know that his book would trigger such a response. If he really wanted to be taken seriously, he should have tried a different approach. As it is now everything around this book suggests only one thing: pseudo-science. Iblardi (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You now are trying to do the same thing as Van Hooff: trying to prove a priori that a research you do not know can only be pseudo-science. With the same method you can prove that it is pseudo-science to affirm the identity of Alexander the Great and Zeus-Amon, of Antony and Dionysos, or even of M. Annius Verus and Marcus Aurelius. Apart from the fact that this, being theory-finding, is not allowed in WP – you should write an article elsewhere, maybe Van Hooff can help you find a friend for publishing it –, you should consider that you are now no longer quoting a libelous statement but making one yourself. — Populares (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was trying to explain rather than trying to prove, but apparently this activated the "libel" function again. Never mind. Iblardi (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
And the 'blockme' button. Making accusations like that is a very bad idea, and he has been given a 48 hour block. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Populares block has been extended for abuse of multiple accounts, I am deleting his attempts to evade his block by using an IP address as 91.89.168.201 (talk · contribs) who has now been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Populares Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page from editing by IPs, since this is clearly Populares evading his block. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did this six days ago. You do not need to do it again.
But I now have a request/suggestion for all people watching this page. Do you really think that discussing the article with Populares or any anonymous IPA is going to lead to an improvement of the article? I suspect that good faith editors like Dougweller and Ilardi don't really believe so. If I am right, here is the advice: do not engage Populares Just ignore her. The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article only. There is no point to any other discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we summarize what has been learned here?

In copyediting rounds, I come across other kinds of claims about fringe ways of understanding ancient texts. Today, it is Robert Haralick, who is apparently an expert in computer vision. However, he has also got some fringe publications in using some kind of mathematical analysis of the Torah, and in his article, there are some unsourced claims about the relationship of the Torah (or something) to Moby Dick and War and Peace. Frankly, I can't understand the article, I just know that in the middle of an article about robot vision, there's something about Torah, War and Peace, and Moby Dick, and on the talk page, the subject of the article chimes in to mention whatever kind of numerical analysis he does (pattern recognition of some kind). I don't see any kind of "fringe" tag - just the neutrality tag (which the Haralick page already has). So do articles just stay the way they are, with a warning to readers? And, is there anyway to use a search tool on Wikipedia to establish whether or not an article is an orphan? Thanks for any help. I've been following this page for awhile with great interest.Levalley (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Looks like our friend Populares has decided he's right after all and that all of us are wrong. I'd like to invite him to stop edit warring and give another go at discussing the issues. If he fails again to gain consensus, I'd like him to be courteous enough to recognize that consensus can and does exist without him, and that he cannot always have things his way. Thanks to all.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And our friend Ramdrake thinks he has the right to just revert any edits he personally doesn't like, without the need of giving any reasons. The edits I made were discussed at length here. Of course Slrubenstein and Iblardi are not convinced, since all they are interested in is what they call "improvements", i.e. defamations, quoting of libelous statements. Maybe the best thing to do is to just completely remove the article and the trouble is over. Populares (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The important point is, the edits were discussed and rejected by consensus. You then come back from bloc and give yourself the right to restore your edits despite their being preivously rejected. Also, please stop the personal attacks, or you'll also get blocked once more over that too.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course, the same old story about alleged "personal attacks" again. There is no personal attack in my above comment, and the edits were not rejected by consensus. Populares (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Populares, I have reverted you one last time. After re-reading the entire discussion, it is blatantly obvious to me that your reversion is totally against consensus. If you still think the view of the consensus violates BLP, please bring up the matter at WP: BLPN. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You are the one who is reverting without sound reasons or explanations. Why are you doing that? What is your qualification and motivation?Populares (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Populares is heading for an indef block. Accusing people of libel is a personal attack, motivation is none of his business and irrelevant, as are qualfications. We don't ask people if they are qualified to edit. One of his edit summaries is also a personal attack which was also more or less an admission that he was edit warring against consensus. If he repeats this behaviour when he returns, I will take him to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how Populares' edits have no support but his own, I've reverted them. It is clear there is no consensus for them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I consent to most of Populares' edits, I can't see how there would be a consensus against them. —85.179.135.184 (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Populares, why are you evading your block?--Ramdrake (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not Populares, mind you. —85.179.135.184 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a generally accepted principle here that blatant sockpuppets can be identified based simply on the duck test. For example, that's the reason why my sockpuppetry case against you Populares was rejected: It wasn't necessary. Can you present any evidence that could convince an admin not to apply it in your case? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You just have to do a Whois and compare it to Populares' data. You'll see that my IP address is neither a proxy nor belongs to an anonymizing service. I'm listed as an "ADSL pool customer" of Hansenet, a regular ISP, originating in the Berlin region, Germany. It's just a bit irritating that you yourself don't know the procedure. (??) —85.179.135.184 (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
And a number of those have already been confirmed to be socks of Populares, see here. Your point?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't a checkuser confirmation, it was exactly the duck test confirmation that I mentioned. There were two sets of very active IPs: One from Berlin and one from Baden-Württemberg. Both were candiateds for being Populares. Sometimes they have edited within a few minutes; this is no conclusive proof that there are two different users. Wikipedia has certainly had cases of people using VLAN for stunts like that. I'm a bit less inclined to dismiss this possibility in a specific case when two places of residence of a BLP subject (who, apparently, is an "IT entrepreneur" among other things) are involved. And, in particular, when the "duck" case is as strong as it is here. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The clerk noted this: "It's possible there are two users here". I can only add that the clerk is right. —85.179.135.184 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller that Populares is heading for an indef black - I'd say his next chance is his last chance. But the problem here goes deeper than that. Other editors should assume good faith on 85's part. But 85, please understand that if some people jump to the conclusion that you are a Pop. sock, it is for two reasons: (1) a loss of good faith in Populares, and in my view for very good reason, and (2) that your attitude towards others seems so much like Populares's. Do you wish to respond that this is true of others? Okay, genug, let's stop finger pointing right now. The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article. Improvements must comply with policy. I have seen articles where people with impossibly conflicting views were able to work together, that is possible here. It means abandoning pettiness and finger-pointing, and also respecting editors who want Wikipedia articles to be held to the hightest possible standard, even if this means hard work. It means consensus based editing, which means that we provide explanations for our views but do not ask someone to provide the same explanation twice; it means we consider and respond to what others say, and give others a chance to consider and respond to what we say. And when a consensus emerges, one either works through it, or continues to try to change it on the talk page without getting into the silly revert campaign we saw yesterday. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)