User talk:DianaW

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I have reformatted some of your contributions, Diana; it is Wikipedia practice to differentiate comments (especially interpolated comments) through various indentations, each level of indentation corresponding to a single contributor.


 * Use colons at the beginning of a line- this line starts with one :
 * To indent a further level use two or more :

Hoping we can have a fruitful collaboration - I am actually trying to improve the critical views sections, but to maintain Wikipedia standards while doing this (i.e. keep things clear and verifiably factual rather than emotional/anecdotal)- Hgilbert 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines
It seems to me that you have acted in an uncivil manner on Talk:PLANS. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

Specifically I am referring to your comment ''I think you are busted, Sune. You have replied to a request for documentation, with a bunch of sleaze. I am sorry to be rude but this is sleaze. and don't you realize your rantings are absolutely unintelligible to anyone not already familiar with these issues?''  Please comment only on content not contributers. --Arktos talk 11:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity
Twice now, you've interspersed your own comments smack bang in the middle of mine, splitting my comments into two, leaving one half unsigned. Please don't do this. Not only does it make conversation confusing, it's a nightmare to clean up. I've reverted your most recent edit to Talk:Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity to allow you to try again. I'll consider what you have to say once you post them in accordance with talk page usage. See this edit for an example. Thanks. -- Longhair\talk 01:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I realised mistake are easy to make, so I gave you several chances before I had to let you know :) Mistakes occur, especially on a talk page related to Waldorf education - they're so long. I'm the first to admit Wiki's are terrible places to discuss things, unlike internet forums which do have their advantages over a wiki on any day.


 * I'm not sure there is a way to correctly intersperse comments amongst those of others without messing up the thread of the conversation. Many here, including myself, frown upon the re-organisation of talk page comments without permission. It's just a limitation of the wiki system I guess. If I can be of any other help, let me know. Earlier today I suggested to User:PeteK that I feel dispute resolution is perhaps the next course of action in relation to the Waldorf and Steiner articles. When accusations of sockpuppetry are thrown about, it's best to get the truth to surface sooner rather than later and some more eyes on the problem. -- Longhair\talk 11:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Verification
Please see WP:Verify for standards for verifying information. There is no requirement that sources are published in English. Hgilbert 10:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

An administrator replied, elsewhere:

"All external links should be in the English language for the English Wikipedia. I know if I came across an article with external links in German, I'd delete them. -- Longhair\talk 21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)" Dian adds: Presumably this ends all further nonsense about your cherished "anti-antisemitic" articles, since they can't be cited anyway.DianaW 12:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies
You seem to be very unclear about Wikipedia policies. Here are some for your reference


 * This was unnecessary - and very much like a childish fit. You've been trying to intimidate both Diana and me (and others) with your Wiki-policies since we arrived here.  Then you wonder why people don't want to go out of their way to be civil to you.  It is truly intimidation.  You know, Diana is right about your "Weasel words" and how you have continually tried to imply things that are not actually true. I wonder if you would benefit from some advice suitable for a child who throws such a fit... GROW UP! Pete K 03:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; perhaps you could read the list of weasel words and compare it with the sentence that Diana has been complaining about - "During this time he also collaborated in complete editions of Arthur Schopenhauer's work and that of the writer Jean Paul and wrote articles for various journals, including a series for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-semitism." - and explain how there is the slightest relationship to both of your criticisms here. Or how there is the slightest breath of untruth. I would ask that you both cease making personal comments and follow the civility and assumptions of good faith that are part of making life as an editor here a healthy experience. Diana has herself said that she abrogates these policies consciously. I suggest that this is not healthy. Hgilbert 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "I'm sorry; perhaps you could read the list of weasel words and compare it with the sentence that Diana has been complaining about - "During this time he also collaborated in complete editions of Arthur Schopenhauer's work and that of the writer Jean Paul and wrote articles for various journals, including a series for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-semitism." - and explain how there is the slightest relationship to both of your criticisms here."

Pretending not to get it, does not impress anyone, and does not go a long way to getting people to "assume good faith" coming from you. The claims about the "journal he wrote for that combatted antisemitism" - omitting to claim OUTRIGHT that HE combatted antisemitism but merely hoping this is how people will hear it - is the purest example of weasel words I can imagine anyone coming up with. Unalloyed first-class genius weaseling.DianaW 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's appropriate to have this discussion here on someone's talk page while they are out of town, so why don't we take it to the pages in question. You have presented material that, once again, suggests the opposite of the truth.  I don't know if "Weasle Words" is the right term for it - I like the word "dishonesty" myself - but in any case, let's discuss it on the Steiner page - OK? Pete K 16:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you admitting that you do like dishonesty. I'd noticed it myself. For example:
 * You and Diana denied that Steiner had written articles in the Journal of an organization opposing anti-Semitism; you claimed that this statement in the article was "dishonest", in bad faith, and a host of other accusations. I proved that he had; in fact, your accusations were totally out of order, dishonest if you like.
 * Then you and Diana claimed that the wording used "weasel words"; I have copied it above; there are no ambiguous words, everything claimed is cited. Your use of the term "weasel words" is, in your preferred phrase, dishonest.
 * Then you claimed that the statement in the article implied that Steiner's articles in question were against anti-Semitism, which was, according to you, completely false; again a breach of good faith, more accusations. First of all, the statement simply said he wrote the articles, not anything about the content. Second of all, I've quoted from one of the articles and there is a link provided by another user to a copy of a whole other article, both of which prove that the articles are in fact against anti-Semitism; any such implication would be justified. All of your accusations are false, or in your words, dishonest in the extreme.
 * Finally, you continue to employ these accusations though all of them are totally baseless and have been proved so. You have provided no evidence of any kind throughout about the articles in question. All of your claims have been disproved. You are dishonest in the extreme, to use the word you suggest you like so much, and have been from start to finish.

As you feel this belongs on the talk page in question, I'll put this there too. Hgilbert 21:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * wrote: "You and Diana denied that Steiner had written articles in the Journal of an organization opposing anti-Semitism" - try getting your facts straight before you spill ink on my talk page next time. I obviously never denied Steiner wrote articles for this journal. I did ask for the citation, and I'm glad I did, as we've ascertained that the citation is unacceptable for a variety of reasons. I do certainly claim that you were trying to imply these articles mean Steiner was opposed to antisemitism. We all know darn well you're not *this* dense, and this display of disingenuousness is truly unattractive.DianaW 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "both of which prove that the articles are in fact against anti-Semitism;" - the sources you give show absolutely no such thing. I *do* assume good faith from you insofar as I suspect you do genuinely believe they show that.DianaW 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've answered you there - lest you be shown to be an idiot in TWO places. Pete K 00:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are throwing around the term "weasel words"
WP:Weasel says that these are words such as the following, and lack citations to concrete sources:

"Some people say..." "Some argue..." "Contrary to many..." "As opposed to most..." "Research has shown..." "...is widely regarded as..." "...is widely considered to be..." "...is thought to be..." "It is believed that..." "It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..." "Some people believe..." "Some feel that..." "They say that..." "Many people say..." "It may be that..." "Could it be that..." "It could be argued that..." "Critics/experts say that..." "Some historians argue..." "Considered by many..." "Critics contend..." "Observers say..." "Fans say..." "Accusations..." "Apparently..." "Allegedly..." "Arguably..." "Actually..." "Obviously..." "Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..." "Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..." "The (mainstream) scientific community" "It is claimed..." "It should be noted that..." "Correctly (justly, properly, ...) or not, ..." Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..." "...is only one side of the story" "Experts suggest..."

None of which occur in the phrases you cite, which are perfectly ordinary statements of fact with citations provided.


 * So you've decided to *show* us how weaseling is done, rather than just discuss it? LOL. The ABOVE is weaseling. Pasting in LONG lists of phrases and triumphantly saying, "See? None of these appear in my article." Oh, my god, priceless.DianaW 12:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You claim that WP:Civil does not apply to you

 * I claim no such thing, and the below is so offensive I think I will just delete it. You have some nerve. Don't paste in long lists of unfounded accusations against me again, and don't trash my talk page quoting wikipedia policies to me again. This is VERY bizarre behavior, and you're starting to freak me out.DianaW 12:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith
"Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project either. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent."

Hoping this is helpful. Hgilbert 02:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! Boy - take a few days off, come back and find my talk page graffitied. , listen up. I've told you before and it isn't going to change: I'm not intimidated this easily. The whole mess you've made on my page is ITSELF thoroughly uncivil - the actions of a sullen schoolboy. (A few comments above, to counter some of the unfacts and outright untruths above, but mostly, this is not worth my time.)DianaW 12:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
There is a current request for arbitration relating to the articles Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Hgilbert 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Day of the Triffids and Lysenko
Chapter 2, page 23 of Penguin edition, 1972:

'[...] [A] cleavage of methods and views had caused biology there, under a man called Lysenko, to take a different course. [...] The lines it had taken were unknown, and thought to be unsound -- but it was anybody's guess whether very successful, very silly, or very queer things were happening there -- if not all three at once.'

The emphasis is mine. It may be that there is more than one edition of the book, and this passage does not appear in yours?

BillMasen.

I have the Modern Library 2003 edition - and unless I am still missing it - which is not impossible - it's not there. Could you give me some text that comes right before or after these lines, so I can be sure? I'm not disputing you; if it's really been removed in later editions, it's worth getting to the bottom of *why* and discussing it in the article. I just want to be sure I'm not actually blindly not seeing this in the chapter. I'll post this on the article talk page too. There are also several web sites on Wyndham and I'm going to see if I can find anything about this there. Thanks!DianaW 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My pleasure :). Incidentally it is on Page 32, not 23 as I stated before. Apologies.


 * In the middle of the conversation between Umberto and the manager of the Fish Oil company, ::the narrator digresses and talks about the Soviet Union. To quote a bit more:

'The other way would be simpler,' remarked the managing director.

'If it were possible at all,' Umberto agreed. 'But unfortunately your competitors are not approachable -- or suppressible.'

He made the statement with a confidence which caused the managing director to study him thoughtfully for some moments.

'I see,' he said at last. 'I wonder -- er -- you don't happen to be a Soviet citizen, Mr Palanquez?'

'No,' said Umberto. 'On the whole my life has been lucky -- but I have very varied connexions....'

That brings us to considering the other sixth of the world -- that part which one could not visit with such facility as the rest. Indeed, permits to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were almost unobtainale, and the movements of those who did achieve them were strictly circumscribed. It had deliberately organised itself into a land of mystery. Little of what went on behind the veiling secrecy which was almost pathological in the region was known to the rest of the world. What was, was usually suspect. Yet, behind the curious propaganda which distributed the laughable while concealing all likely to be of the least importance, achievements undoubtedly went on in many fields. One was biology. Russia, who shared with the rest of the world the problem of increasing food supplies, was known to have been intensively concerned with attempts to reclaim desert, steppe, and the northern tundra. In the days when information was still exchanged she had reported some successes. Later, however, a cleavage of methods and views had caused biology there, under a man called Lysenko, to take a different course. It, too, then succumbed to the endemic secrecy. The lines it had taken were unknown, and thought to be unsound -- but it was anybody's guess whether very successful, very silly, or very queer things were happening there -- if not all three at once.

'Sunflowers,' said the managing director, speaking absent-mindedly out of his own reflections. 'I happen to know they were having another shot at improving the yield of sunflower-seed oil. But it isn't that.'


 * And the Umberto conversation continues (empahasis mine).


 * If this passage isn't in your edition, I can't imagine why.

BillMasen 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm working hard to try to figure out why not! Short of re-reading the entire book start to finish, I've done my best to locate this material and it does not appear to be there. (We're talking about chapter 2, right? Though I've looked elsewhere, too.) My son has also read the book and says he doesn't think this was there. This is quite a lengthy omission - in my edition, there appears to be no discussion at all between Umberto and anyone at the Fish Oil company. Umberto's selling the oil to a company is dealt with in a paragraph, with no dialogue. I'm concluding it has been removed in the later edition, and I'm very interested to learn why or whose decision this was. I wonder if anything else was removed. The 2003 edition has an introduction by Edmund Morris, with no mention of later revisions to the text. Fascinating. Will post to the article discussion page too.DianaW 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Any news on this front? It's interesting to me why it should have been removed. But we all have better things to do :) BillMasen 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry, no, I haven't gotten to it yet, but I will.DianaW 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, did you ever email them? If not, no biggie, just want to check i am not following the beaten path. I will email them myself if you have no opportunity. BillMasen 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

NG article
thank god the outside voices of reason are coming in. i was honestly worried that we were going to have to deal with the racist quasi-troll on our own, or that the other wikipedians would be clueless themselves. --LQ 14:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Adoption/Mentorship
Hi DianaW,

As you have shown an interest in Adoption/Mentorship (do not really mind what it is called), and Pete K has no problem, come and join us at User talk:Lethaniol/Pete K. I won't change the name of the page if that is okay - too many things to do - too little time, but you and Pete will have equal right to use the page and ask any questions. Meet you there Lethaniol 13:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education
The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been issued at the above link. Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reopening of arbitration
I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Fred Bauder 15:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review preparing my statement
In considering what statement to give the committee I am seriously contemplating a recommendation that several editors be topic banned from Waldorf-related articles. You are one of the people I have in mind. If you wish to persuade me otherwise, please present whatever you want me to consider at my user talk page. I expect to spend about one week deciding what position I'll take. Durova Charge! 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review
The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nadine Gordimer
It is fair to say that the discussion on what to include (if anything) about the robbery of [Nadine Gordimer] has gone on for several months and has gotten us nowhere. Each side is still arguing its original points, and there seems to be no spirit of cooperation here, or willingness to compromise on key issues. Lquilter has repeatedly mentioned that mediation might be a good idea, and I must agree with her. Mediation is a voluntary process, and its results are non-binding. If both sides do not agree to the mediation, then it will not occur, for its results would then be meaningless. It is, however, the next step toward Arbitration, which is binding. The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to all parties. It is not to force one viewpoint on others. It is very important that all sides agree to this mediation. I am in the process of drafting the Request for Mediation. If you have a problem with mediation, or do not wish to participate, please speak up now at Talk:Nadine Gordimer. Andyparkerson 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Nadine Gordimer, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.


 * Thanks for your past efforts. I removed your name from the RfM when lquilter told me you were no longer active here. Your work in the past on Gordimer's page is greatly appreciated. Andyparkerson 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal comments
Recently my attention was drawn to some old talk page comments of yours. 

Those were written over 5 months ago, and I'm sure in the meantime you've grown as an editor. But regarding the approach you had then, it may be faulted for focusing too much on the editor himself. On Wikipedia we must accept editors of all viewpoints so long as they can edit neutrally. Editors may be biased but their edits shouldn't be. The old saying is "comment on the edits, not the editor". In the case of your old remarks, it'd have been better to say, "these edits promote a racist viewpoint" instead of, for example, "this editor has a racist viewpoint". We don't mind if the editor is a racist, we just need his edits to be NPOV. Aside from that, making personal comments create inflamed disputes. [I try (and often fail) to avoid making any use of the pronoun "you" or other direct references. "Why did 'we' make this edit?" "How can 'we' fix this problem?" I think it helps.] Impersonal is better than personal, especially when it comes to discussing contentious issues. -Will Beback • † • 09:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: And sorry for referencing such old history - this was just presented to me for response. I figured it merited comment but it doesn't necessarily reflect on any edit you've made since then. -Will Beback • † • 09:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To say "these edits promote a racist viewpoint" is the same thing. There's no "racist" anything in mentioning that black perps attacked Gordimer. That's an ad hominem.  As you say, she is responsible for their own actions. Many disputes on Wikipedia involve ideology but we still require editors to act in a civil fashion. This is an encyclopedia project, not a schoolyard brawl. These extremely disruptive attacks are not acceptable.  I am shocked that you didn't take more action, based on your stated standard of conduct.  I haven't seen you treat 70 this lightly.  Her actions are still causing damage several months later. Yakuman (数え役満) 09:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you awards 70.23 a barnstar for calling someone a racist I guess you are very easily shocked. -Will Beback • † • 05:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * it's also useful to see the context of the above comments by DianaW, in particular, the tone of her initial posts and the tone of 70's reply that she responding to, in words above. Doldrums 10:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Further articles
We have been systematically working our way through articles covered by the arbitration. You are correct that there are more to do, and I agree that the first three (Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, Waldorf Education) are far enough along that we can turn our attention to further articles, especially if we can achieve consensus on removal of NPOV labels (otherwise they require further work first). I believe that some articles you identified, those about specific organizations, need no further modification as they are purely factual using the organization's website as reference. Hgilbert 12:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And how many years do you expect this to take you? Why do you think it is fine if they sit there in their current hopelessly inaccurate state till you get around to fixing them? You get months or years of free advertising from this convenient arrangement, and you feel nobody should rush you in complying with the arbitration requirements?DianaW 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Email about Waldorf
Hi Diana, I sent you a direct email since I didn't want to start a big conversation here, but then I see from a post you put on the Waldorf Critics Yahoo group that you might not be able to access your personal email right now. So...let me know if you want me to post it here instead. Thanks. Henitsirk 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf Education article
Hi Diana

I'm following-up to your (and Hgilbert's) comments on my own talk page --John Stumbles (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comments in the Pete K sockpuppetry case
You asked what I meant when I said that the IP addresses seemed linked to Pete K. It's hard to explain exactly how I judge questions like this. I use a combination of factors. Common interests, the appearance of double voting, statistical overlap or lack thereof in day and time of editing, even similarity or differences in usernames and user creation times - all of these are factors I consider where relevant. If that's still not enough, I can request checkuser assistance, which is extremely reliable but, ironically, must be used sparingly because of privacy issues. I hope that explains some of the odd language I was using.

Regarding the slow response time: I'm a volunteer, like everyone else, and I have other responsibilities both here and in real life. I wish the response times were faster, but there's a limited amount I can do to fix that problem. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Matching IP addresses is one way to link accounts, but there are other ways. For logged-in user accounts, only checkusers have access to IP addresses.  I'm not a checkuser, so I need to request checkuser assistance if the IP addresses need to be examined.  Also, even for logged-out editors, where the IP addresses are known, sometimes they do not match exactly.  An IP address contains four numbers (A.B.C.D).  Sometimes the first two numbers (A.B.) are the same, but the last two numbers (C.D) are different.  This happens when a user has rotating IP addresses within the same IP range.  In such cases, it is very likely that all IP addresses in the same range that edit the same article are the same user.  Sometimes, for various reasons, it's possible that two entirely distinct IP addresses are nonetheless the same user.  The technical details are complicated, and I don't understand them fully, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence between IP address and user account for most users over an extended period of time. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Link to archived case: . No, I can't prove from first principles that all of these IP addresses are the same person. There's a remote possibility that one or two of them is a different person.  The evidence linking them was that the filer of this SSP showed diffs where one of these IP addresses edited Pete K's talk page in a way Pete K himself would have done, and other IP addresses edited in a similar manner as that one IP address.  That evidence is sufficient to warrant the remedy that I recommended, namely a block on the user account and semiprotection of the articles so that the IP addresses can't edit them without creating an account, logging in, and becoming autoconfirmed (4 days plus 10 edits).  If I were trying to link two user accounts with more than a year of experience, as has come up in some rare cases in the past, I would need more evidence than this.  It may seem to you as if I'm making arbitrary decisions without evidence.  The evidence suggests that the IP addresses are being disruptive and are behaving like a single person who's been banned from these articles by ArbCom.  For the remedy I suggested, that's all I need to know.  I hope that answers your question. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

email sent regarding anthroposophy
Tallard (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)