User talk:Credibility gap

Welcome

 * 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 &#38; 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)

Usage of multiple accounts
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. Luke no 94  (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
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)

Appeal

 * 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.-- Mdann 52   talk 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)