Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pgio

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Pgio (talk · contribs), FrankZappo (talk · contribs), Januszkarp (talk · contribs), DrHyde (talk · contribs), TTLightningRod (talk · contribs), and 81.193.157.168 (talk · contribs)

This is probably skating the thin edge of acceptable requests here, but...

A group of editors has been working to legitimize a pseudscience article (Aetherometry) over the last several months, at least, battling a series of editors determined to keep it, at least NPOV (my opinion, YMMV, etc.). Suddenly, a new editor has appeared (Januszkarp (talk · contribs)), questioning the lack of peer-reviewed sources, a key issue -- and suddenly all of the editors who minimized the issue fall in behind her and vote to delete the article on those grounds (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (second nomination). My suspicions are that this is a Sollog-type situation -- if you can't control an article, kill it -- and I suspect sock/meatpuppetry as a technique.

Note also that this matter is up at Deletion review. --Calton | Talk 03:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'd take offense at being called a "sockpuppets/meatpuppets/or gullible cohort trying to use Wikipedia to promote the views and sell the self-published books of a complete load of half-baked crap being pushed by glory-seeking self-promoters not talented, knowledgable, or smart enough to get published or noticed by actual scientists or actual peer-reviewed journals" (Calton's very own words in the Deletion Review just moments ago).... But being that what he just said is simply an uninformed POV, I'm not as offended as he would wish. Let's not loose sight of the real issue at hand, and so soon after the AfD: That a group of influential Wikipedia Admins using their Sollog-type situation, have pushed relentlessly WITHOUT CITATION, that the article must be pseudoscience only upon the basis of its lack of coverage in mainstream reference. Calton, the hypocrite, is here to continue this game immediately following the removal of the material BECAUSE the original constructive group is tired of endlessly fending off the likes of his pseudo-science ass. TTLightningRod 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of good faith, I have to oppose this measure. Pgio is civil enough to be distinguished from the spitefulness of Zappo. LightningRod has a different personality from them both. As does Januszkarp. So unless the sockpuppeteer was an exceptional actor (it would be hard to keep up 3-4 different personalities) I must severely disapprove of this request. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

One wonders what psychological test User:Natalinasmpf applied to come to her conclusions about different personalities and her qualifications for determining on-line acting ability -- and how she missed the same falling-in-line behavior with the sudden appearance of User:Januszkarp, which is the actual basis for this request. One also wonders what, exactly, the horrible harm that will come if one more name -- whose behavior is remarkably similiar to others -- is added to pile of potential sockpuppets.

And TTLightningRod, your gaseous expression of garment-rending hurt impresses me not -- I was asked my opinion, I gave my opinion, and did so in a way that the ludicrous, bad-faith nitpicking of User:Januszkarp would have no toehold, given the way she (or he) pounced on my simple use of the polite "in my opinion" in her (or his) attempt to score points. Oh, and if you're going to whine about indirect personal attacks, it's best not to employ direct personal attacks by calling me a "hypocrite" -- or do you apply different standards, which would be...damn, there's a word for that, which escapes me at the moment.

Either this request is a good one on its merits or it's not -- and whether the target(s) are offended has nothing to do with that. --Calton | Talk 09:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Calton, you want to obfuscate the real issue at hand through calling into questions the intentens of user Januszkarp as "ludicrous, bad-faith nitpicking"? He was a breath of fresh air, to put into words, without taking sides, the maddening double standards here at Wikipedia. So unlike you, I will be point-blank, so as not to mince any words..... Go fuck yourself Calton. Go fuck yourself and your CalvinBall bullshit. Go fuck yourself Wikipedia, your Caltons, your CalvinBall bullshit, and your bullshit future trying to call yourself an encyclopedia. Please, Oh please most powerful Admin of All..... Permanently block this user from the psycho-sphere called Wikipedia. TTLightningRod 14:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Per request, blocked. Incivility, personal attacks etc despite previous warnings and blocks too. NSLE _(T+C) 09:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Natalina about Pgio. My (albeit limited) interactions with this user have been positive. NSLE _(T+C) 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

None of the users in this request appear to have anything in common with one another, based on CheckUser. Move along, please. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made below, in a new section.

If you are creating a new request about this user, don't forget to edit this section and add {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pgio}} The previous request (shown above), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (it will still appear here).