User talk:PhilKnight/Archive91

A procedural question

I am confused and wanted to ask a question of you so that I can better understand correct procedure. I recently observed your decline of an unblock request. The circumstances surround a new account that quacked so loudly you could hardly hear yourself extending AGF while they were tying their own noose. When the account they were so apparently tethered to by puppeteers string got his or her self blocked for disruptive editing this account requested admin help to remove the autoblock they were effected by. In doing so they confirmed what was otherwise painfully obvious and the combined effect of each account's contributions eliminate any possibility of the second account being a socklegit. As such, why is the second account allowed, by talk page access, to further disrupt Wikipedia with feigned unblock requests? Shouldn't we only deal with requests from the sockmaster? Thank you for considering my question and I look forward to your reply.—John Cline (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess what you're saying is that if you were an admin, you would remove talk page privileges from the sockpuppet, and only entertain unblock requests from the sockmaster. That would be a perfectly reasonable approach, and I don't have any problem with admins taking this approach. I think in situations where we have checkuser confirmation, we usually take that approach, however in other cases, we don't always. PhilKnight (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that reply. To clarify, I'm not saying if I were an admin I would have removed TP access, I'm saying I still have much to learn about adminship. I do have a follow on question. If a sysop with a checkuser flag places a block, is that considered a checkuser block? I presumed, upon seeing your flag, that your presence actually endorsed the sysop's original block for sockpuppitry. Based on your answer, I suspect I've been wrong on both former assumptions.—John Cline (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't always run a checkuser when reviewing unblock requests, so it doesn't automatically follow. In situations where the user is caught in an auto-block, this implies the accounts share the same underlying IP, which in turn means that running checkuser won't provide much more information. PhilKnight (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tabascoman

I saw you state Tabascoman was not specifically blocked for BLP violations, but it seems a bit like an odd statement since you explicitly cite BLP violations in your block rationale and it came soon after a claimed BLP violation. Another point I am curious about is that you stated any admin could undo the block, but the edit on which the block was partly based is now oversighted. Seeing as you are an oversighter, I am curious whether you performed the action and intended to use oversight on the edit. Were that the case then there is little chance of any admin undoing your block without your permission or the permission of another oversighter and so your invitation for any admin to undo the block is peculiar. Could you please illuminate me on these details?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, my response is as follows:

1. Tabascoman was arguing on his user talk page in a manner consistent with the notion he was blocked purely for WP:BLP violations, while the actual block reason in his block log is WP:NOTHERE.
2. The block template I placed on his talk page, again, gave the reason as WP:NOTHERE. In addition I left a note that said "This year, your involvement in this project has clearly been an overall negative. You have argued incessantly, and introduced problems in regard to the Biography of Living Person policy, but you have done almost nothing useful." As far as I am concerned, that doesn't contradict the block reason.
3. I agree the block came after a BLP violation. That is, he was blocked, and after the block expired, he committed another BLP violation, and I then blocked him. In his unblock request, he attempted to obscure this sequence of events.
4. I did perform this oversight. This was also the final straw as far as I was concerned.
5. I don't understand why you have a problem with me allowing any admin to unblock him. As far as I am concerned, in order to unblocked he needs to commit to changing his entire approach to Wikipedia, and this has very little to do with any single oversighted post.

PhilKnight (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Last point covers the whole. I had seen that ANI issue, he was just trying to win a senseless argument. He is still trying to win. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor popped up out of nowhere to push an indefinite block over two comments. Everything else sprang from that singularly frivolous and disruptive act by an editor who actually doesn't appear to be here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Should he have argued so much at ANI? No, it was definitely counter-productive, but it is a lot easier to say that when someone is not trying to rally a lynch mob against you at the drama boards.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't agree more with you about lynching at drama boards. I was in the same boat some time ago. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So you state that the "BLP violation" you suppressed was the "final straw" yet think any admin will feel comfortable undoing a block based on an edit the vast majority of them cannot even see because they lack the same user rights as you. That makes no sense. You effectively made it so that only admins with oversight abilities can undo the block without fearing for their bits. More importantly, as someone who saw the link, read the blog post, and looked at the material in the various links within the post, I am not seeing how it meets the criteria for revision deletion to say nothing of suppression. I saw no personal information, no libelous information, and I certainly don't think copyright infringement applies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you intend to respond to my concerns above?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No. As far as I'm concerned, you're rehashing your earlier comments. PhilKnight (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you really addressed my concern about how by oversighting a crucial piece of information you are essentially denying any admin other than an oversighter the ability to review the block. More importantly, you did not address what it was about the link you thought was worthy of suppression.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, the fact that an uninvolved admin did review the unblock request strongly suggests that you are wrong about this. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Any admin can decline an unblock request. You still have not explained why you thought the link needed to be oversighted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to explain why you thought the use of your oversight tool was necessary?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You have already referred to the link as a BLP violation, so I don't think a further explanation is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree that it was a BLP violation, only not that it was claimed to be one and was cited by you as partly the reason for the block. As I noted above, I did not see anything that met the requirements for suppression or even revision-deletion for that matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz

Arrived back on Talk:OpenOffice and Talk:OpenOffice.org and virtually the first words he types is battle ground and accusing me of sock puppetry.

29 September 2014:

• Walter Görlitz: "I know you want us to say that it's because there are a few editors who "control" or "manipulate" the proceedings..."
• bd2412: "You seem to be mistaking me for someone else."

4 October 2014:

• Walter Görlitz: "Say hi to Torai when you see him next; perhaps when you look in the mirror."

Nothing learned. --Tóraí (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead of Caste system in India

How "albeit less prevalent and on a much smaller scale" is supported by [1]? In Indian Subcontinent, caste is legally noted at least in Sri Lanka, India and even Pakistan's law lists about 40 scheduled castes. So if there is religion, there has to be a caste as well, which is the source of identification. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also if the scale and prevalence among Hindus is large because in Indian subcontinent, there are more than 1 billion Hindus. 2nd is obviously Islam, but not even 380 million. No doubt that the scale would be smaller, but this is already known. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the sentence before the one you've highlighted "caste based differences are still to be found". PhilKnight (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be rephrased as "albeit on a smaller scale". Bladesmulti (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I don't have a problem with that. PhilKnight (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

67.225.33.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is sock-puppet of SerokKurdi (talk · contribs). The ip and the account are activated at the same time and editing (actually vandalising) the same articles. Also their additions are the same. Plus both the ip and the account are obvious vandals. You can see it by looking at their contributions. Can you please check it? Regards. 212.174.135.252 (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi anon, not really no. Under normal circumstances, I check accounts after a Sock Puppet Investigation case is approved for a check, or if it's relevant to an unblock appeal. I don't normally check accounts in this manner. However, I agree there are legitimate concerns about the IP being used to edit while logged out, and in this context, I've blocked the IP for a week. For what's it worth, I don't agree that either the user account you mention or the IP are vandalizing. PhilKnight (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Just look at the history of this and this articles. Regards.212.174.135.252 (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP Editor, you are as entitled as any other editor to make a report of vandalism (after warning the party sufficiently) or to open a sockpuppetry enquiry. PhilKnight is but one editor and has but one opinion. Yours differs from his and that is quite reasonable (I am making no comments on the merits of your case, just on the fact that your opinions differ. I have not checked the merits of your case out and will not be doing so). His talk page is not your place of remedy, and he has indicated so politely above. If you feel you wish to take this further please do so, but in a more appropriate venue. Fiddle Faddle 09:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a case. Regards. 212.174.135.252 (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, PhilKnight. You have new messages at Crazytales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 12:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket # 2014100710025782

This ticket may be of interest to you, as it is regarding an article you deleted. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm, the article was deleted using the proposed deletion process, so I've restored following the email request. PhilKnight (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Great work in spreading WikiLove. -- Tito☸Dutta 18:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, FYI you recently blocked a serial block evader [2], and he's back as [3]. His last block has not expired yet so it's another case of block evasion. He can't help himself. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

He has switched to this one [4]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the same user? PhilKnight (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies! On checking the IP location, it seems not, plus the obnoxious edit summaries are absent. But I took this IP from the LTA page, therefore I didn't think to check. Might be worth taking this IP off that page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This one [5] is definitely the same guy: Chilean IP, restoring the edits of his blocked IPs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This one [6] is currently operating. Interesting to see that he has asked another admin about his situation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on WP:AN about this, because there seems to be a good faith disagreement amongst long term editors on how to handle this. PhilKnight (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lquote

Template:Lquote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Clarin

Unless I am totally wrong, Ivan Clarin is back. Just 9 days after the whole sockpuppet crew was blocked he evades his block by using an IP. The Banner talk 02:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And he is trying to recreate his friends too. The Banner talk 02:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the IP for a year. PhilKnight (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scooooter

Thanks! I archived it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review unblock of Alcoxnow

You unblocked Alcoxnow here. Your talk page message says that it was an innocent IP caught by an autoblock (from User:Materialscientist's indef of User:Axx1900) but I really doubt it. The common IP, the creation date, and the subsequent edit pattern (identical interests in University of Toronto Faculty of Law and Osgoode Hall Law School strongly suggest that this autoblock was valid, and that Alcoxnow is another sock in the cluster blocked by Materialscientist on Oct 5 at 9:53 ( User:Steinberg2000, User:Ttt8888, User:Xxx2014 , and User:Axx1900). I've used up my AGF on this user, and I doubt that the unblock request was made in good faith. Meters (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Meters, looking at the recent edits, I agree with your assessment, and I've blocked indefinitely. Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Meters (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to check out Bairneman (talk · contribs) as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Donyi Taga

User:Adi Yameng could belong to him, I think. (He tried a G7 on DT's user page and hasn't done anything much else.) Peridon (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I ran a checkuser, and the result was  Likely, so I've blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Best known IP edit today

Today the "best known for" IP, who we are discussing at the admin board, reverted one of my edits here [7]. I had added two reliable sources, including one from the official Formula One website, to explain an event at a Grand Prix in 1991. The IP has reverted me and removed both sources, calling that edit biased, and replaced it with a source from the autobiography of the driver involved, which is patently biased.

I am effectively unable to revert him, aren't I? Even though that edit is atrociously biased towards Mansell, I cannot revert him because he would cry that I'm a bully, a troll, a liar and all the rest of it. Again. He's blocked and he's edit warring against me while we're discussing whether to ban him or not. What's the point? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it would probably be preferable to wait until the discussion on the admin noticeboard is closed. At the moment its 2:1 in favor of a ban, and if a ban is the decision, obviously then his edits could be reverted, and his IPs blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. I hadn't planned to revert him anyway, and was hoping someone else might do it. It's actually a much poorer edit than most of his usual work, and I'm surprised he made it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, he has just been reverted, by probably the best Formula One editor in the project. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to put up with this guy indefinitely, as he's managed to fool enough people. People who have clearly never had to try to work with him. If you have any further ideas on how to handle him, please let me know. Thanks for your help, Bretonbanquet (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Ichabod 99840 requesting unblock

CU block, I assume? Can't see any clear evidence of socking otherwise... Please could you clarify the block reason before I make a decision on what to do with his appeal? Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 07:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind; I found the {{checkuser-alto}} in the block log - and it looks like DP has already dealt with the appeal. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, yes, sorry, I should have left an explanation on the user's talk page. The account is  Technically indistinguishable to The Determinator (talk · contribs). PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Indiaproperty/Lakshmin/Tapovahini

Hi, you've had previous contact with User:Lakshmin who was banned from Wikipedia for promoting his employer, Indiaproperty. Now a "new" user User:Tapovahini is editing the page (after a few minor edits to unrelated pages). He is very likely the same person or another employee trying to sneak back in. I suppose that this is what is classified as a sock puppet here. I'm not sure how such cases are supposed to be handled, if at all they are… Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! I never contacted this user ever. Since I know Indiaproperty through comScore, I thought it is important to have it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapovahini (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page, and blocked Tapovahini. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:JacksonRiley

Thanks for catching this one. You might also check User:Judithar1. These may be meetpuppets rather than socks, but there does appear to be coordinated action, along with the same mutual admiration seen with User:PortugalPepe. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've checked Judithar1, however the user is technically  Unrelated to the other accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I appreciate it. - BilCat (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Revocation of talk page privileges

How was User:Butter and Cream misusing the talk page?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi The Devil's Advocate, the revocation of talk privileges was performed by Future Perfect at Sunrise so it's probably best that you ask him instead. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Socks of User:San Roberta

It is pretty clear that this account is another sock. Another account, has performed the same edit as done by Roberta. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 14:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

San Roberta

When I looked at my Watchlist I saw a user called Johnny C***s who vandalized article "Bangkok". I then looked at his talk page and came across your comments. Why don't you have a look at this sockpuppet investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/San_Roberta

I have started two new ones today. I think you should have a look as you "check user" ed the other accounts. Thanks! TChemB (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi TChemB, I've run a checkuser on the accounts, which are  Likely related to each other, but technically  Unrelated to San Roberta, which is surprising given the behavioral similarities. Anyway, I've tagged the accounts as suspected socks of San Roberta due to the behavioral similarities. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

San Roberta again

Hi Phil Knight,

I think you may wanna look at this sock puppet investigation. I have made another report. San Roberta keeps creating new acounts and inserting the same old joke into the same pages. Have a look by clicking the link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/San_Roberta#21_October_2014

Seems like the same user repeating the joke again. Since you were involved in the previous investigation it may be worth taking a look. Thanks! TChemB (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok , thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Before filing these investigations I looked at others to see what they would look like and what happens. On some of them there was this "A long term abuse case exists at ....". Do we need to create a page about the Long Term Abuse or not? Just wondering. Thanks! TChemB (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably not yet, we usually create long term abuse pages for cases which involve disruption over several years. PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Adjutor101

Good discovery[8], see Fine (penalty). He has not taken back any of these statements, what can be the next step? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bladesmulti, to be honest, I think he is lucky not to have been blocked indefinitely. Anyway, I think he should be encouraged to retract the comment. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Phil. I understand from one of your previous posts that you'll be removing the talk page of DYK from your watchlist. Perhaps in that case you'll refrain from removing DYKs from the main page or queues etc since you are clearly rendering yourself absent from common discussion places. Seems a shame really but I've seen this quite a lot lately, with admins suddenly appearing from absolutely nowhere to adjust the main page without paying any attention to previous community consensus or process. In any case, if you find your actions so heavily criticised that you decide to "unwatch" the very discussion page, I suggest (with good faith, having been there, done that) you don't make the same kind of edit again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man, I have only edited the main page once before, and remember that I was criticized at the time, despite I was merely updating an "In the News" (ITN) item as the article content had been modified. Also, looking at Fram's edit, which I think you're possibly referring to, at the time he made it, there was clearly a discrepancy between the DYK item and the article. In regard to my recent DYK edit, other editors had expressed concern at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. I think a more constructive approach would be to say that if Wikipedians agree there is a problem on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, then an admin should be allowed to fix the problem. PhilKnight (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

San Roberta returns

Hey Phil Knight,

In my watchlist I have noticed San Roberta is back as a different user Antonio Silva Gomes. Do you mind silver-locking the articles affected Mong Kok and Lai Chi Kok? San Roberta and his new accounts keep attacking those pages. Thanks!

By the way here is the latest sockpuppet investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/San_Roberta

Thanks for taking a look! TChemB (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way I don't think we need a Checkuser this time. It's pretty obvious and seems like a duck (if I have read correctly WP:DUCK). TChemB (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked IP address

Thank you for your answer. What should I do? It seems that right now, I am able to edit. Aquila89 (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

But right now, I can edit; shouldn't I? Aquila89 (talk)

Yes, you're allowed to edit because you're not blocked; it was just an IP that you were using earlier that was blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

{{unblock|Hi. I've been blocked by you. Again. I just wanted to say that I believe that I've been falsely accused for manipulation. We also do not exclude the possibility to have misunderstand the rules of "block evasion", but I haven't edit articles not using my account, somebody else did. The computers are used by a couple of editors, from whom only I have an account. The changes are alike because they are carefully prepared. I only opened a few subjects for discussion on the talk pages, not using my account. I'm Bobi987 Ivanov 79.126.164.28 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)}}