User talk:Credibility gap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Credibility gap! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
I saw that you said you know the basics, so I thought I'd give you the broadest message available. Ignore all the stuff about being new, but I hope you enjoy the project-related links. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. Credibility gap (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Credibility gap, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Credibility gap! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Usage of multiple accounts[edit]

Per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I surprised? Well, I would have been extremely surprised, up until to a couple of weeks ago, but not so much now. Not after following a few links recently, and reading a few of the other ANs, ANIs and SPIs that a particular mission-following, POV-pushing cohort have been responsible for in the last 18 months or so. Clearly the procedures and policies surrounding the policing and integrity of administrators need tightening up considerably.
What I would also have been shocked at until a couple of weeks ago, is the flagrant and unseemly triumphalism (such as this, this, this and this) that followed the clearly subjective and clearly biased decision made by a certain administrator, who can only have spent a maximum of 19 minutes examining all the background to the case, since they were working on other stuff until 16:03 (UTC). A decision that, btw, flew in the face of the findings of the CU in the case too.
And talking of the CU findings and the seriously subjective nature of the ruling, can it possibly be policy compliant to brand a user as "confirmed sock", when, actually, it's nothing more than "alleged sock" ("suspected sock" isn't appropriate either, because I doubt anyone involved in this conspiracy does suspect that I am actually a sock at all).
Other revealing behavioural indicators of User:Lukeno94:
  • The edit-summary-free closing (extremely unethical and considered discourteous by real Wikipedians) of, and disingenuous closure summary placed on this ANI, an ANI which they knew was not about the SPI on me and EzEdit and in which I did not allege a sock-puppet relationship between Martinvl and Garamod Lethe. What is he afraid could be revealed by any further investigations there?
  • An outrageous response to EzEdit (who, for all we know, isn't actually a DeFacto sock either, and who had not even been declared as such at that time) here.
Finally, does anyone out there (if any genuine Wikipedia-vision-follower happens to be reading this) have any candid advice about whether an appeal against this block would be worthwhile, given its clearly pre-meditated and predetermined nature, and if so, on what grounds? Credibility gap (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that you're a sock of a community banned editor, then unless you're willing to take the WP:STANDARDOFFER on your main account, the only thing you should do is go somewhere else and stop trying to "stir the pot" with fresh sockpuppets on Wikipedia. Also given the above load of WP:NOTTHEM, if it's repeated your talk page access will be revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You wrote: "Given that you're a sock of a community banned editor...". That's a false assumption. I am alleged to be such, nothing more. And I deny that allegation. Are you saying that I have to confess to something that I haven't done to stick a chance of getting unblocked? To lie? Is that the type of personality that you think Wikipedia wants to attract and encourage to be editors - liars? Credibility gap (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Not that I should really bother subjecting myself to the rubbish you're spouting here, but EzEdit was confirmed as a sock (yes, confirmed) prior to my revert; given that you are EzEdit, and are a community banned user, I have every right to say anything vaguely reasonable - and given your attempted trolling, I stand by my comment. And both of your sock accounts were blocked two minutes after my revert. Oh, and your "I'm not DeFacto, I'm someone else, I really am" act is utterly transparent, by the way. As it always has been. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
More evidence of your warped and biased state of mind. Neither EzEdit or myself have been confirmed as socks. The CU results were "Likely" for EzEdit and "Possible" for myself. And in CU-speak:
  • "Likely" means using the same internet service provider company, which in the UK can make millions of users equally likely.
  • "Possible" usually means everything is different except for the country that their IP address is registered in.
So look at the judgements again, and you will see nothing is "confirmed", the conclusions are all personal opinion, nothing more.
And no, I am not EzEdit, and have not been banned. I have however been the target of a concerted attack, merely for challenging the actions of an orchestrated POV-pushing coalition. And looking at the history surrounding many, if not most, of the metric system related articles, and at the contributions of editors involved in those articles, it appears that I am far from the first to suffer at their hands and will almost certainly not be the last.
Now, unless you are going to apologise for your unfounded allegations, please do not post on my talk page again. Credibility gap (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to the decent folks out there[edit]

May I ask again that if anyone out there, who has the best interests of the project at heart, have any advice about how best to launch a winning appeal against this block, could they please share it with me. Email would be fine if you don't want others to be party to your good deed. Thanks. Credibility gap (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Credibility gap (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

I am not guilty. The pronouncement made against me by User:EdJohnston at SPI, and upon which they based my block, is logically flawed. I'll explain the flaws one-by-one.

Here is the pronouncement, with part numbers added to ease cross-referencing later:

Based on my own knowledge(1) of the measurement disputes(2), the checkuser finding(3), and the numerous established editors(4) who have found these charges credible(5) I'm indef blocking both User:EzEdit and User:Credibility gap. There is no hint that either of these is a general-purpose editor(6) who just happened to wander into the measurement area(7). DeFacto has socked relentlessly in the past, so this behavior fits his pattern(8). User:NebY's comments above are convincing(9).

I'll now address each of the numbered parts from above:

1. The "own knowledge" might be vast, or it might be zero. We cannot know which, so we cannot give any weight to it.
2. What measurement disputes? That is jumping to conclusions. The opening SPI doesn't mention any disputes: with respect to myself all that it alleges is that I 'began almost immediately editing at WP:MOSNUM then to Martinvl's just-GA'd History of the metric system.' No mention of a dispute there, and the area of MOSNUM I contributed to was not measurement related.
3. There had been no checkuser finding reported on me at the time this pronouncement was made (16:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)). When the checkuser finding did appear (16:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)) it gave "possible": ie. an IP address in the same country.
4. Where "numerous" = 2. Yes, only 2 - User:NebY and User:Lukeno94). And here they are [1] discretely congratulating themselves (note the title) on the outcome. Here's [2] one of them abusing EzEdit before EdJohnston declared the verdict. Here's [3] one of them going against the tide in attempting to defend serial measurements-article-disrupter and relentless metrication POV-pusher User:Martinvl in his appeal against his measurements topic ban during which he was indefinitely blocked.
5. Found the charges credible? Both supporters are clearly careful watchers of the DeFacto SPI page, both having made similar contributions to previous cases on it. And having sided with the metrification lobby in measurement unit conflicts previously ([]). They are not just uninvolved passers-by, and their history would suggest a heavy bias in favour of the metric system. You might argue that they would support any action against any editor who challenged their apparently utopian ideals of an all-metric Wikipedia.
6. Which policy requires every contributor to be a "general-purpose editor"? I laid my cards on the table when I registered.
7. My contribution history is very short, so it is very easy for anyone to see precisely how I wondered in: via various noticeboards, MOSNUM/Dates and numbers, arriving at 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC) in the newly promoted GA History of the metric system, almost 10 months after I started editing Wikipedia with this account.
8. That DeFacto may have socked relentlessly does not imply that anyone caught disagreeing with the metrification mantra, within 10 months of starting editing, is automatically a DeFacto sock.
9. NebY's contribution is a contrived analysis, skillfully constructed, with exquisitely cherry-picked examples, and eloquently put. However, if they were on the other side of the metric fence, they could similarly have made the case read exactly the opposite way.
So what are we left with that would support such an uncompromising verdict and penalty? Nothing, I would say the case against me is in tatters. Credibility gap (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have examined the editing history of the respective accounts, and there is no doubt whatever that this is a sockpuppet. (And no, I am not going to kindly tell you how I reached that conclusion, so that you will know what give away signs to avoid with any future sockpuppets.) JamesBWatson (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

No surprises there then. However, as having signed-up to the rules and policies that govern Wikipedia, I accept that it is your prerogative to make such transparently and overtly biased decisions. I cannot honestly respect it though - it is too cold, too calculated and too ruthless to be the honest conclusion of a fair and balanced analysis of all the available evidence. There cannot be "no doubt" about anything that is, like this decision, based purely on a subjective, even pre-conceived, reading (if indeed it was read) of the data.
JamesBWatson, your decision, or more specifically its wording, has left me in little doubt that it is contrived - well done. May I ask whether you too are part of the off-Wiki cabal that seems to hold sway over who can and cannot edit the measurement articles, and what can and cannot be added to them? Credibility gap (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a block due to evidence by Checkusers, so they will have to clear this up. The last scan they ran resulted in this account being blocked, however as I have not seen the output, I am unable to comment. My advice would be to be patient and wait for this issue to be resolved.--Mdann52talk to me! 13:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mdann52, I think you have misread the blocker's statement or are confusing me with someone else (EzEdit on the same SPI possibly?). The block on me was issued before the CheckUser report on me was returned. And when the CU report was returned later, I was only given as a "possible". See my point number 3 above.
Read through the rest of my appeal thoroughly too, and you will see that none of the reasons for my block are actually supported. That's the crux of my appeal, that the reasoning is all flawed. Credibility gap (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)