User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/CreepyCrawly/One last try

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Links (my edits are shown as diffs in chronological order)
Statement

I'm going to give this one last try.

I believe that CreepyCrawly is innocent. I am absolutely certain that the indefinite block levied against him violates Wikipedia policy given the information that CreepyCrawly and I have presented.

Unfortunately, I have failed to convince many administrators of this. Raul654 blocked CreepyCrawly and is defending his decision. Stephan Schulz and FisherQueen have formally declined to unblock. Raymond Arritt and Brusegadi have also endorsed the block. JzG has said he does not believe CreepyCrawly's story. In contrast, Sarcasticidealist wrote, "I don't find the duck test persuasive here," and Merkinsmum also doubted the allegations. Counting myself, there are 3 defenders of CreepyCrawly against 6 accusers. Normally, in Wikipedia, 3 against 6 does not constitute a consensus to unblock.

However, this is not a normal case. Truth is determined by the facts. Those who defend this unjust block are either unaware of the facts or refuse to acknowledge them.

[edit] CreepyCrawly's repeated denials

My statements: I have never seen anyone so strenuously and consistently deny being a sockpuppet. (User talk:CreepyCrawly)

Also, as I mentioned above, two of Scibaby's socks requested unblock, but they did so halfheartedly, and it's evident that Scibaby's strategy was just to "rinse and repeat" = create a new bunch of socks and start over. He never came close to protesting his innocence as forcefully as CreepyCrawly is doing. CreepyCrawly's argument that he's innocent doesn't prove per se that he's innocent, but it does demonstrate that he's not Scibaby. (User:Shalom/CreepyCrawly)

Raul654's response: 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. (User talk:CreepyCrawly)

Raymond Arritt's response: Your argument boils down to "this can't be Scibaby because he's never appealed a block before." I find that most unconvincing. (WP:ANI)

My rebuttal: You didn't actually review the account histories of every single documented Scibaby sockpuppet. I did. Binky The WonderSkull, MRN and Obedium did request unblock, but they spent one, two and three edits on it, respectively. In contrast, CreepyCrawly posted three requests for unblock, made about 50 edits to his talk page to protesting his innocence, started a long thread on Wikipedia Review, and cooperated with me by email. To Raul654: yes, other sockpuppets have falsely and vehemently protested their innocence, but Scibaby has not, so this is probably not Scibaby. To Raymond Arritt, who says "this can't be Scibaby because he's never appealed a block before" - he's never spent so much as three edits to appeal an unblock, where this guy has tried everything. The reason is obvious: Scibaby knew he could always resume his disruption with the next sockpuppet account, whereas CreepyCrawly knows he does not have any sockpuppet accounts to fall back on.

[edit] CreepyCrawly's editing style

My statement: The edit summaries of Scibaby tend to be shorter and use acronyms like NPOV. (User talk:CreepyCrawly)

Raul654's response: 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.

My rebuttal: Let's talk about those edits to global warming. Here are the diffs:

Diff Edit summary
First edit Smells weaselly (see WP:AWW). "Majority" by itself would imply too few; "large majority" implies more than a simple majority, without overstating it.
Second edit Undid revision 198321798 by CreepyCrawly (talk)
Third edit WP is not a democracy; there is no policy requiring prior consensus or collective permission before making an edit. Be bold!
Fourth edit Neither "overwhelming" nor "majority" found in cited source.
Fifth edit Weasel words in source do not justify weasel words in article. Something is needed to denote more than a simple majority, but current source provides no alternative.
Sixth edit rv, previous rv undid several unrelated edits, rather than specifying.
Seventh edit I gave my reason for why the source is poor. Please respect it as legitimate and in line with policy. I realize I'm being baited into 3rr; hoping rv of self does not count.)

Now let's take a selection of diffs from Obedium to the global warming article.

Diff Edit summary
First edit Remove unreferenced statement re. scientists who disagree with IPCC
Second edit Rv. latest projections entry
Third edit Did not include discussion for rv., unwarranted
Fourth edit Fox News is not an acceptable reference. Removed offending passage.
Fifth edit No reference for key passage. Removed.
Sixth edit Improved phrasing.
Seventh edit Putting project increases in proper context.

[edit] New evidence: Thailboat

Thailboat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) made four edits to global warming articles from 04:30 to 04:56 UTC on 16 March 2008. Raul654 blocked him and stated in the block summary that this was confirmed by checkuser.

CreepyCrawly had just finished a flurry of 8 edits from 03:00 to 03:13, ending about an hour before Thailboat created his account at 04:25. CreepyCrawly returned to edit at 13:03 on the same day. Since he claims to live in Maine (Eastern US time zone), he would likely have been sleeping between 03:13 UTC (11:13 PM local time) and 13:03 UTC (9:03 AM local time).

A checkuser on CreepyCrawly versus Thailboat could come close to proving CreepyCrawly's innocence. In order for one person to have done all this, CreepyCrawly would need to have changed his IP late at night, create an account as Thailboat, make four edits, get blocked, disappear for eight hours, and return to his old IP as CreepyCrawly. This seems to be a very unlikely scenario. If checkuser reveals unrelated IPs, that's a reason to unblock. Even though Thailboat has used anonymous IPs, how would he switch them so quickly? And, if CreepyCrawly has used the same static IP for the last week, how could Thailboat change back so quickly?

Technical details aside, I find the one-man scenario unconvincing because I can't see why a rational person would do this.

Actually, I'll stop writing here. I just found the "Smoking gun." I'll post it to User talk:CreepyCrawly. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)