User talk:Adamduker

Adamduker, you are invited to the Teahouse

 * The usage of "but" is among the least convincing of the evidence presented at the SPI, and by itself is meaningless. The other evidence is very difficult to refute and speaks for itself. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 04:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I am not a sock person. I am a real person. I honestly don't understand why I am being accused of this. We have different IPs, so I don't know what you mean when you say we have technical similarities. We misspelled someone's name in different ways. We agree on some things. But I have never even met these other people. As you admit at least one of the points of evidence is meaningless, perhaps you might reconsider. I am an actual human being. I do not mean to be rude, but I must say that this is not the way to treat well-intentioned people with whom you disagree.Adamduker (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Just as the other two socks do, you are twisting words around. I never said the usage of "but" is meaningless, I said it was by itself meaningless. Of course it means something or else I wouldn't have presented it as evidence. And listen, I'm not out to get anyone wrongfully blocked. Remember Huon and I are not Jeff Smisek fans or the like, we just wanted to improve neutrality and make the article conform to WP:BLP policy. If I'm understanding it correctly, the technical evidence shows you are likely related to the other socks based on where and when you edited, and multiple checkusers have stated this. Furthermore, the sheer coincidence of the editor interaction between you, Lauraface32 and Topdog76 is just downright shocking. Tag on the similar editing habits and you're looking at a pretty air-tight case. My recommendation is to revoke talk page access to prevent further disruption of continual unblock requests. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 22:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will take you at your word when you are not trying to get anyone wrongly blocked. But that is exactly what happened. I am not trying to misrepresent you at all. But the plain fact is that people have accused me of editing from the same or similar location as these other people. I cannot be more emphatic when I say this is simply not true. Whoever is making this claim is either badly misinformed or simply misrepresenting things. I am not a sock person. I simply agreed with Lauraface on her position. Your editing habits are very similar to Huon's, but I would never think of accusing you of something like this. I am shocked that I was accused. There is not a single piece of technical evidence -- as many have claimed. The main piece of behavioral "evidence" is that I agree with them. But if it is against the rules to agree with someone, then that defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia. Again, I am not a sock person. I am a real human being who has never even so much as been ACCUSED of something like this before. There was no trial. No chance for me to defend myself. The first I ever heard of this was when I was already blocked based on false evidence. Again, and I say this as respectfully as possible, THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD THAT MY IP ADDRESS IS THE SAME AS THESE PEOPLE. CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY ARE PATENTLY FALSE.Adamduker (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When evidence is strong enough, we sometimes do not notify suspected sockpuppets of the case before administrative action is taken. The other two socks went on a rampage attacking Huon which is why I didn't ping you. Have you carefully read the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Lauraface32? It goes well beyond you just agreeing with Lauraface32. The timing and invested interest in two seemingly unrelated topics is what really stands out. How can you explain Lauraface32 siding with you in an editing dispute back in February about a church, then the very next heated dispute they get involved in, 10 months later, about the CEO of an airline, you again appear – after three entire months without editing. Between the two disputes, both you and Lauraface32 revert reputable editors removal of content that contained BLP concerns, citing consensus is needed to remove it. That is some coincidence, you must admit! Then the linguistic similarities. As for the checkuser, I can't speak for it because I can't see it, but the community and the Wikimedia Foundation has put their trust in them, so when multiple checkusers report the same findings it's pretty sure thing. I'm not saying it's the same IP though – I don't know. At any rate, surely you can see why we are so convinced you are related to the other accounts? Right? &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 23:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
We don't seem to be getting anywhere, and in this context, I'm revoking talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Nomination of Philip Benedict for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philip Benedict is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Philip Benedict until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)