User talk:CreepyCrawly

Hi Obedium!

Come again?

New user

You appear to be a returning user. In particular, your editing style, POV, and knowledge of Wikipedia policy strongly suggest that you are User:Spamsham. You are almost certainly aware that Wikipedia frowns on such multiple use of accounts, see WP:SOCK. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What is this, a witch hunt? Please don't make baseless accusations. I care nothing about whatever previous run-ins you may have. I'm sure some admin will abuse their privileges to snoop my IP (which they have no business doing unless I am a vandal). Will you apologize when that Sherlocking proves you wrong? CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A pov pushing sleeper account created in nov. 2006, makes one edit, and then none until March 2008. . .making a run at Global warming articles. Time to blockyblocky. R. Baley (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Sleeper account"? I didn't log in for ages, so what? I tend to edit as an IP. Again, so what? I saw a few absurdities @ GW and wanted to fix them...SO WHAT? This is ridiculous, why am I defending myself to you people? Go ahead and block me for nothing more than making a few sensible edits that your homeboys can't justify reverting. Why they would even want to is beyond me. CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Global warming. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Veritas (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't break 3rr. I knew I was being baited into doing so, by a user who reverted all my edits rather than individual ones (revert is to be used sparingly). I made sensible edits and was effectively told to buzz off. CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that you violated 3RR. That is the standard warning given to new users who are about to violate it. However, it seems that you already know about 3RR which I think gives credence to the suspicion that you are a Sock. --Veritas (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Think what you like, just please do apologize when you find that I am none those users I've been accused of being. (One of the GW people's user page has a list of names they think is me. It's like a coffee clutch gossiping about the new single guy next door. Very sad.) But I do not have to justify myself to you people. This isn't an inquisition, it's a community encyclopedia. CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Failure is not an option

I don't know what to say, other than I am not you. You are spot on with your edits and unwavering commitment to the truth. Keep up with the bold edits, and don't worry what everyone thinks. Your courage and vision is being watched by many. May your continued contributions serve as a beacon of hope in the fog of despair. Remember, in the face of overwhelming opposition, Galileo uttered "And yet it moves." Spamsham (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! CreepyCrawly (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people think so highly of themselves is scary... Brusegadi (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thanking him for stating that we are not the same person. I don't think highly of myself. Why would you come to my talk page for no other reason than to make snarky comments? How does that improve WP? CreepyCrawly (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Help! Are there any honest Wikipedia administrators?!

{{helpme}}

I've been unjustly banned!

I've copied the following from owner Jimmy Wales' user page -- please read it before brushing me off just because your fellow administrator has spoken:

Statement of principles

Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do the Right Thing. Doing the Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.

Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".

"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.

For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community.

"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk.

Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends.

Baseless witch hunting

This 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).

CreepyCrawly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not this other user that I've been accused of being, nor any of the others that Raul654 has accused me of being. I have been unjustly banned with no evidence whatsoever, as Raul654 admits on his talk page. My edit history shows no disruptive behavior. I have been banned because I tried to make a good faith edit to an owned article. I demand to be shown evidence that I am any of these other users, or be unbanned. This is outrageous and nonsensical. You people do not own Wikipedia!

Decline reason:

Stale request, see below for next and current ones. — Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2008 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Still waiting

This 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).

CreepyCrawly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Still no response? I've also emailed Raul654 and no reply yet. Why do I have to get brought into this childish internet squabble? I'm none of those people he thinks I am, and I don't care about any of this nonsense. Please hurry up and unban me. This is ridiculous.

Decline reason:

This user is certainly a member of an abusive group of SPA puppets. Compare Special:Contributions/CreepyCrawly, Special:Contributions/Spamsham, Special:Contributions/Grecian_Formula, Special:Contributions/Sword_and_Shield. I see no reason to lift the block. — Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2008 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Strangely or not, we people have lives, real works that bring food home, and we can't review unblocks and read our emails at the speed of light. I'm waiting for Raul's input here. Being angry does not make things faster. Thank you for your patience. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's Sunday, and Wikipedia has dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of administrators. Please stop stalling. Unban me so I can participate in the Wikipedia collaborative encyclopedia project. You can release me from my cage while you commence to digging through logs looking for some legitimate reason to ban me so you people won't look like abject fools. You'll never find anything because I AM COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN RAUL654's WITCH HUNT! But feel free if it makes you feel useful. I'm really starting to loathe this place, but you've set my blood to boiling and now I must have justice. We'll talk about the fawning public apologies on my user page from the involved administration afterwards. CreepyCrawly (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The usual threats and angry rants don't speed up the process. Jmlk17 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What "process"? I was banned with a line of code, I can be unbanned just as easily. And I've made no threats, but I am angry, and my ranting is justified. Since you've so kindly stopped by, may I assume you're an administrator? If no, please mind your business. If yes, please check unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org -- you've got mail. CreepyCrawly (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes we could, except that we need to establish Raul's claims. Acting entitled will not convince anyone to unblock you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

But that's just it: I am entitled -- to justice, and to not be presumed guilty, and to the same respect that any other editor in good standing would receive. Instead of getting those things I am entitled to, I got caught in Raul654's puppet-trawling net. I'm sure you would be less than enthused if you were in the same boat (my boat, that is). CreepyCrawly (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If this user is not a Scibaby sock, he's sure doing a damn good job looking like one - a new account pushing a contrarian POV editing exclusively on global warming articles. Coupled with the established fact that Scibaby is now using anonymous proxies to duck checkuser, I see no reason to believe this user's self-serving claims that he is not a Scibaby sock. Raul654 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First, produce evidence of my "contrarian POV editing," or retract that statement. I was pushing for NPOV, and my edits show it. Second, I don't care if "Scibaby" is editing from Mars -- I am not Scibaby. So leave me out of this. Go hunt Scibaby without me please. It hardly matters that you "see no reason to believe"; what matters is that you see no evidence to support your flimsy mock trial and hasty execution of an innocent bystander to your witch hunt. You even said as much on your talk page, but I see that evidence has been removed. Swell. CreepyCrawly (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, you said I am "certainly" a puppet. This doesn't just imply that you have irrefutable proof, it states it flatly. Present this proof please, or recant and unban. I am collateral damage in this fishing expedition. CreepyCrawly (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK. You are free to ask a second admin for his review. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The "duck test" is not "certain" proof. It is a desperate attempt to find a behavior pattern in every user who won't grovel and scrape before you, to tie them with your list of troublemakers as "puppets" so you can couch your flagrant abuses in the guise of everyday janitorial cleanup work. CreepyCrawly (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean it's possible for me to request an administrator by name? If so, would you please name one that you and Raul654 are not friendly with? This needs an objective party that has no feelings of attachment to the GW article. I think that's what this is really all about, because I dared to touch it. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I don't know what else it could be. I can't speak to WP:DUCK because I don't know anything about those other users' behavior or how I am supposed to have quacked like them. Edit: From WP:SPADE/DUCK - "Accusations should never be made without overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence." Note that it does not say bans should not be made, but not so much as an accusation. You cannot have any evidence against me, and a gut feeling cannot be incontrovertible. You people have severely overstepped your bounds. CreepyCrawly (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you cannot ask for one particular admin, but may ask the admin community as a whole. Hopefully a neutral admin will come up. As far as I know, User:The Evil Spartan is not an admin, and he may have gone to bed for today, anyways. I know I'll do that now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It says I can still post unban reqs; doing so

This 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).

CreepyCrawly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd like to request an administrator who not only knows nothing about this fiasco, but who either doesn't know or -- preferably -- doesn't particularly like Raul654. He is clearly too stubborn to admit when he's made a glaring mistake.

Decline reason:

I don't know User:Raul654, but comparing your edits with those of the other users linked, I agree that you appear to be the same user. If you were proved not to be a sockpuppet, you would still be a problematic user, clearly at Wikipedia only to push a specific point of view on a specific subject. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:11, 17 March 2008 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note that I have sent another email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org to correspond to this request. Please check that email if you have access to it. CreepyCrawly (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and what ever happened to The Evil Spartan? He said he was looking into the case. CreepyCrawly (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to pose a question to Raul654, Stephan Schulz, and any other admin who dares answer: say I were able to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that I am not a sock puppet. What would your response be? Would you unban me and apologize, or would you leave the ban in place and scramble to cover up your mistake? Serious question. Serious answer? CreepyCrawly (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical questions are meaningless questions. If you have such incontrovertible proof, you should definitely post it here, and see whether you would be unblocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Please email the Wikipedia logs to me and I'll do your job for you. Thanks. CreepyCrawly (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia logs"? How would that help to make your case? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the logs contain information that would clear me. *shrug* CreepyCrawly (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. At best, they can show that you access Wikipedia via different IP addresses - a rather trivial feat for a half-way computer-literate user with minimal resources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess the only thing between innocent users like me and the banhammer is the "gut feeling" of irritated admins. Swell. CreepyCrawly (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he's referring to the checkuser logs? Many of Scibaby's IPs can be found here, and I'll post CreepyCrawly's IPs if he consents. Raul654 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely consent. CreepyCrawly (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact I'll get you started - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.105.244.192 - I have no idea what IP I signed up with over a year ago, but you have that I'm sure. CreepyCrawly (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser records CreepyCrawly as using one IP - 70.105.244.192 (bearing in mind that Checkuser only stores the last few weeks, not all IPs ever). This IP has been used by him and Razor6. Raul654 (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Would you please unban me now? CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How am I a problem user, pushing POV? My hackles are certainly raised now that I've been banned unjustly, but that cannot be used as evidence against me in the case at hand. I am accused of being a sock puppet. That accusation is false. CreepyCrawly (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion from Shalom

Hello, CreepyCrawly. I read your complaint on Wikipedia Review, and I decided to investigate.

I am thoroughly convinced that you are not Scibaby, and are not even remotely related to him or any of his puppets. I believe this for a number of reasons:

1. I started investigating cases at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets in June or July 2007, almost a year ago. In handling a few dozen cases, I have never seen anyone so strenuously and consistently deny being a sockpuppet. Sometimes I've seen a person deny being a sockpuppet and turn out to be lying, but your decision to spend literally hours on this case puts you in a separate category. Everyone else who is a "real" sockpuppet just quits while they're ahead, and maybe starts over with another account. That's what Scibaby has done, many times.
2. I have examined about ten of the many accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby. It emerges that Scibaby has been pushing a POV against the general scientific consensus on global warming for the last four or five months, since the end of 2007. Having this viewpoint in and of itself is not a distinguishing characteristic: there are many people who share this view. (I am not one of them.) The edit summaries of Scibaby tend to be shorter and use acronyms like NPOV. If you check his edit summaries, he's very consistent in using about 7 or 8 words, and he edits numerous articles in the subject of global warming, and he almost never discusses anything on talk pages. You, in contrast, have discussed the issue extensively on Talk:Global warming. I haven't checked, but it's possible that you made more edits to that page in a single day than Scibaby and his socks ever made. In contrast, your edit summaries in your first edits to global warming were full sentences, much longer than Scibaby and in a somewhat different tone. Your self-revert on your second edit to that article (third edit overall) indicates that you are likely a new user. Scibaby would never have made a slip-up like that.
3. If we are to believe that you are a sockpuppet of Scibaby, we must assume, first of all, that your IP address in the checkuser logs (which I don't have access to) is an anonymizing proxy. Such things are rare, though not unheard of, and blocking someone against checkuser evidence hinting at two separate people is against common practice, without very strong WP:DUCK evidence to the contrary - evidence which I believe is not only lacking, but actually contradicts the possiblity of any relationship whatsoever. Furthermore, if you are a sockpuppet of Scibaby, we must assume that he has been planning to unleash this "sleeper account" for more than a year. This is completely impossible. When you made your first edit on 19 November 2006, Scibaby had been working intermittently on the nanotechnology article using his main account, User:Slaphappie, and User:Obedium. At that time, Scibaby had not taken any interest in global warming whatsoever, and would not do so until November 2007, a full year later. Furthermore, none of his accounts made any edit to Wikipedia in the week before or after your edit to Talk:Civilian control of the military, a page which I am sure was of no interest to him. Assuming that you are a sockpuppet of Scibaby thus leads to absurd, indefensible conclusions. Therefore, I completely believe you when you say you are someone else.

I am not an administrator on Wikipedia, so I am not empowered to unblock you. However, I am respected by many administrators for my impartial handling of suspected sockpuppet cases in the past. I have several ways of trying to get you unblocked, but I need to hear from you how to proceed. Do you want me to try to convince Raul654 because he's the one who blocked you? Or should I ask for an individual administrator who has experience investigating suspected sockpuppets? Or should I bring this to broader attention at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents? I can do any and all of the above, but if I wish to advocate for you, I need you to give me the go-ahead. Please email me at yrobinso <at> gmail.com.

I try to cooperate with the administrators of this site, and I see myself as part of a team. Accordingly, I am sorry for the wrong we have caused you, and I will do what I can to make it right. Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I love you! I don't know which route to ask you to take, because I have no idea which would be the more prudent. I get the feeling Raul654 probably deals with a lot of vandals and the like, and probably has little time for people who claim innocence. I don't think he has malicious intent towards me, and maybe if you could ask him to just step back and think about what you've said, he might realize his error. But I'll email you as you asked, in case you don't see this. And thank you for your efforts on my behalf! CreepyCrawly (talk)

I have seen a couple socks scream and kick. I wont link, to not teach our friend here some dirtier tricks, but I just feel that Obedium (creepycrawler) was over confident that the sock test would rely heavily on the checkuser, hence her eagerness to have her IP snooped. At the end of the day, the disruptive pattern and relentless editing is similar to that of past socks. As for the differences in behavior you mention, when this user started the socks were obvious, so there has been the expected refinement of technique. This may be one of the oldest accounts she has, hence, she is holding on strong. Brusegadi (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a sad, sad little man. I'm confident you will never find any evidence because -- *ghasp* -- I am innocent. Why do you clowns act like it is up to me to prove my innocence? I could just as easily say that you, Brusegadi, are a sock puppet. Can you prove me wrong? Of course not. And were I in a position to abuse you in that manner, you would protest strongly, and rightly so. Should I skip to the gallows with a smile on my face? And by the way, I am male. Would you like me to call you on the phone and talk dirty to you? As for my being disruptive, that may be so, if one is an admin who just wants me to slither away into the grass. Not going to happen, I'm afraid. I must have justice, which for me has a three part meaning: 1) that I be unbanned with full privileges restored; 2) that I receive fawning public apologies posted on my user page from every admin who has publicly accused me of any impropriety; 3) that every admin who spoke out against me, who is also a regular editor of the GW article, publicly admit that they were motivated purely by a sense of ownership of that article and a sense of indignation at seeing it touched by such a peon as myself. CreepyCrawly (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We've had sockpuppets lie and claim they have been blocked in error, and do so vehemently. user:VacuousPoet springs to mind. In the end, what is the result? A lot of wasted time. Vehement denials mean absolutely nothing.

You claim that Obedium uses acronyms and abbreviations, and this user does not. This is patently false - here (his second edit ever) he refers to WP:AWW; two edits later he refers to wikipedia and WP, then "Weasel words" rv and rv. This is not the behavior of a new user. You say that Scibaby never used talk pages. This is also patently false - Obedium, his first account, did just that.

If we are to believe that you are a sockpuppet of Scibaby, we must assume, first of all, that your IP address in the checkuser logs (which I don't have access to) is an anonymizing proxy. Such things are rare, though not unheard of - Actually, Scibaby is confirmed to have recently started using anonomyizing proxies. It's quite a coincidence that CreepyCrawly should show up, and start behaving exactly like him, just after Scibaby starts using anonomyzing proxies.

As to the age of this account - Scibaby always registers accounts and ages them, so that they can edit semi-protect pages. The only difference here is of degree. Morever, while Scibaby was editing legitimately at the time this account made his first edit (his only edit prior to his coincidence decision to start editing again this month) it's common for legit editors to have non-abusive sockpuppet accounts. (I have several)

It's not out of the realm of possiblities that this user is innocent, if you accept his self-serving denials, ignore the fact that by his second edit he was using Wikipedia terminology and acronyms, and also ignore the string of unlikely coincidences that he just happens to come in at the same time Scibaby starts using anonymizers, and starts editing the same articles in the same manner as Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be a "new user." That's your assertion. I've possibly been around WP longer than you, but I've been a sporadic editor of minor things, and have always just used my IP because I'm not interested in becoming a "Wikipedian." I want to be unbanned because my ban was unjust. If justice were to be served, I'd log out and you wouldn't hear from me until I was forced to login by a semi-protected page, as happened with GW. This is about principle for me, nothing more. For you to call my protests "self serving" is laughable. What the hell else could they be? CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

*cough*

Ahem, pardon me. Oh, hello there! I didn't notice you before. Hey, do you think you could do me a favor? It seems I've been mistaken for a vandal of some sort, and can no longer participate in the Wikipedia collaborative encyclopedia project. Do you think you could be a dear and flip that big red switch over there? Yes, the one that reads "BAN HAMMER" below. I'd do it myself, but I can't reach it through these bars. Thanks! CreepyCrawly (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thread

There's a thread about you at WP:ANI#Please unblock User:CreepyCrawly. Just thought you might want to know. Useight (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. Too bad I won't be able to participate in my own defense. Some racket they've got here. CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

About my IP

On the thread about me people are wondering if my IP is a proxy and how old it is, etc. It is not a proxy. It is Verizon ADSL and I live in Maine, USA. I don't know how old it is, but I do know that it changes when the modem is powered down, because I used to host a Shoutcast station from my machine (small one just for friends) and had to use the tool from no-ip.com to make sure they could always find me. We had a power outage a little while ago (couple weeks? I forget), so my IP may only be that old. I have no idea how to find out what my old IPs were, but some of them would have minimal edit histories here. Like I said, I've been aware of WP since it began, and have participated in a minor way ever since. If reading the help pages and becoming familiar with policy is evidence of malicious activity, then why do you have those pages? Keep people ignorant until they can be taught the ropes by old timers, then your absurd assertion might make sense. CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To Brusegadi, regarding this: I wanted my IP snooped, because I knew it would clear me, but I also understood that you guys were in a pickle because you would have to cook up some excuse to do it (there's that sinister "reading policy pages over the course of a half dozen years" again). You'd have to be fairly obtuse to not detect the schadenfreude in my comment. I was clearly mocking you and Dr. Watson. CreepyCrawly (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Shalom again!

{{unblock|Hi, I'm Shalom, and I'm writing on behalf of CreepyCrawly. I just found four edits that make it so completely obvious that CreepyCrawly is separate from Scibaby that no further discussion is needed. I will post details below this template.}}

Scibaby had three sockpuppet accounts actively editing global warming articles on 16 March, when CreepyCrawly was busy requesting unblock. All three accounts were identified by Raul654 as {{sockpuppet|checkuser|Scibaby}}

• Boltzmann Distribution (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grecian Formula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thailboat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two edits by Grecian Formula overlap with two other edits by CreepyCrawly, all in the span of just four minutes.

Diff	Date and time	User	Page	Edit summary
[1]	16:58, 16 March 2008	Grecian Formula	Climate change	→Solar variation: This section does not have a proper citation. See note above regarding challenged material.
[2]	16:59, 16 March 2008	CreepyCrawly	User talk:CreepyCrawly	→Still waiting
[3]	17:00, 16 March 2008	CreepyCrawly	User talk:CreepyCrawly	→Still waiting
[4]	17:01, 16 March 2008	Grecian Formula	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change	→IPCC processes: Changed header to reflect content

Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I find that pretty convincing. I'll notify Raul; I wouldn't want to undo a checkuser's block without checking with them first. Normally I don't like to see unblock requests on behalf of another user, but in this case I think it's okay since clearly CC wants to be unblocked. Mangojuice^talk 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But how are we sure that this user isn't a meatpuppet? That editing pattern rules out socks, but not meats. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud! It's attitudes like yours that leave innocent men languishing in prison for years, even after their lawyers have thoroughly embarrassed the system that put them there. "OK, so yer fancy DNA test says he didn't rape her. But dad-gummit, he's still black, ain't he?" How much longer do I have to sit in this cage? Until the "jury" has finished wiping the egg from their faces? Until the "prosecutors" retire? CreepyCrawly (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked CreepyCrawly. The evidence is quite clear that he's a returning user (and his protestions to the contrary are utterly unconvincing) but it's possible that it's not necessarily Scibaby. He just did a very good job of acting like it. And to that end, if he goes back to his old editing - that is to say, contrarian edit warring on global warming, on subjects that have been discussed endlessly on the talk page - he can expect to be reblocked on that basis. In fact, it's probably best if he simply steers clear of the whole topic. Raul654 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul654's ominous and shameful warnings are beneath his station. A high-level Wikipedia administrator should not be advising an editor in good standing to "steer clear" of an article that the editor had attempted to improve in good faith. Raul654 labels the editor "contrarian"; the article talk page, however, stands as a testimonial to the editor's unwavering pursuit of neutrality. In order to promote WikiPeace, Raul654 may want to consider spreading WikiLove by apologizing for his part in this unfortunate episode.

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Administrators like Raul654 should take care to assume good faith. They should not revert good faith edits, but should instead follow the appropriate path in pursuit of the ever-elusive goal of consensus. Editors who are blocked for making good-faith edits in pursuit of neutrality should protest loudly. They should view any threats made against them with open contempt, and should recognize those threats for what they are: the final sulking jabs of defeated bullys. CreepyCrawly (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)