User talk:PhilKnight/Archive32

Help Please

Hi Phil I am looking for some advice on how to deal with repeated edits of Lochwinnoch by user: Frenum McSpleen and other pseudo accounts which are inaccurate and defamatory, and which do not add to the wikipedia entry for Lochwinnoch. Thanks. [1] (Bwiseman (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

NFRA

Hi Phil, Is there a plan for how the NFRA mediation will move forward, I'm not sure it's going anywhere. --Deadly∀ssassin 04:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DeadlyAssassin, I've closed the case. If there is a problem of an IP account adding poorly sourced content about a living person, then let me know, and I'll semi-protect the page, or block the account. PhilKnight (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Intifada

Hello there, I'd like your advice if possible. I'm co-mediating a MedCab case, which may be deadlocked, and I'd like to discuss what could be done next. I'm on the irc:wikipedia-medcab IRC channel, if I could talk to you there I'd most appreciate it. The case in question is the Second Intifada case. If I could have your input, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Federation of Republican Assemblies

User:68.46.254.47 is right back at it. See [2]. What is the next step? AN/I? RFC? RFC/U? Sbowers3 (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have looked at your talk page first to see that this question was already raised. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sbowers3, I've semi-protected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange arbitration decisions on NFRA

Your final arbitration comment on NFRA was “If there is a problem of an IP account adding poorly sourced content about a living person, then let me know.” I relied on this standard when I footnoted a USA Today news story and an official court document in the NFRA entry. This is hardly poorly sourced content. I also removed a dead link (NFRA site) and a poor source (a self-publicizing weblog).

You then apparently decided to demonstrate that it's a waste of time to rely on your arbitration suggestions. You simply reverted, contradicting your expressed mediation policy and preserving the bad links, and “protected” the website, apparently going back to a policy based on a “consensus”, which is as far as I can tell the result of 4 people, against 2 people who disagree with the “consensus.”

Here are the people who apparently form this consensus:

Cbrown285, who repeatedly violates the presumption of good faith, inserts spurious information in Wikipedia about the “many times Rod Martin has appeared as an expert on CNN,” and makes up quotes and attributes them to people who disagree with them;
CorpITGuy, who has vandalized my own personal page and repeatedly edit warred until forced onto the talk page;
207.47.78.86, who inserts spurious hyperbole into the entry about how Rod Martin is a “leader of the Conservative movement” and vandalizes my own personal talk page with personal insults;
And, of course, most hilariously, user It is me I think, who fresh from insisting that the personal and professional history of the president of an organization cannot be discussed on the organization’s page, is now arguing that the Bill Ayers (building bomber)/Barack Obama connection should be discussed on that entry. This is clearly a much more tenuous connection/relation than that of Rod Martin to the NFRA. I guess sometimes it really does depend whose ox is gored!

It is very hard for me to avoid the conclusion that a great deal of meatpuppetry and canvassing has taken place from these 4 people and that you have enabled and rewarded that conduct by means of extremely ham-handed arbitration methods. You simply choose to ignore the documented Wikipedia history of Rod Martin's sockpuppetry and vote fraud as well as the strong family resemblance between that and this more recent unpleasantness of whitewashing Rod Martin's history, instead repeatedly taking the side of the current Wikipedia rulebreakers. Thanks for teaching me some very important lessons about the way to game the system on Wikipedia!68.46.254.47 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the article history - I didn't revert before protecting. PhilKnight (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked at the article history, it said "IP account repeatedly includes negative material concerning a living person against consensus and policy." Those are your words, Phil; you are responsible for them. There is of course no policy against "negative" material concerning a living person; that would be silly. There is plenty of non-hagiographic material on Wikipedia, but it is too bad that you have a different policy for this page than for the rest of Wikipedia and are enabling meatpuppetry and related bad behavior on the NFRA page. To repeat, I am grateful; you have taught me some important lessons about Wikipedia and about yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.254.47 (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I semi protected the article following you repeatedly including negative material concerning a living person against consensus and the WP:BLP policy - specifically the lack of a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. PhilKnight (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the "clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability" standard was not met, you should have deleted the entire mention of Rod Martin. Instead, you left his name in but took the "negative" parenthetical phrase out. Most reasonable people would agree that the political and professional history of an organization's president could be relevant to that organization, but for you I guess one parenthetical phrase was just too much! Presumably, if four people from the Democratic National Committee decided to edit Bill Clinton's entry on Wikipedia to remove any mention of the impeachment, you would protect anyone else from changing it back, on the theory that it's negative material concerning a living person against consensus! Most reasonable people would find that to be extremely unencyclopedic, but oh well.|68.46.254.47]] (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) I don't like the user's implication that I am a meatpuppet and have left a comment at his talk page. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sbowers, you would do well to reread this quote very carefully, especially the last four words: "It is very hard for me to avoid the conclusion that a great deal of meatpuppetry and canvassing has taken place from these 4 people." Please try to avoid basing threats on such careless inferences in the future.68.46.254.47 (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very insulted in being classified as a meatpuppet by 68.46.254.47 This classification is way out of line. I also find it very interesting that 68.46.254.47 keeps referencing to prior mediation with Rod Martin, but yet there is no history on his involvement. I thought we were to be limited to only one account on Wikipedia! To me it seems that 68.46.254.47 is doing nothing but crying over spilled MILK. Anyways thanks for handling this case PhilKnight Cbrown285 (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Bill Ayers article, many wiki users have commented on the relationship between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. I added 4 references to national news stories and a quote as a way to provide properly sourced information to the article. I have any many national sourced references to many articles and have received no complaints. I am a fairly new user, so I have sought direction from more experienced users on how to properly cite references and other material I add to articles. Any helpful advice from 68.46.254.47 on how I can improve my references would be welcomed and appreciated. It is me i think (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA...

Thank you...
...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerenetalk 16:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility of Cebactokpatop

Hi,

Thanks for fixing the Fr Sophrony reference on the John Zizioulas article.

I've just looked at the discussion of the page again, and User:Cebactokpatop is (again) being incivil, this time to User:Allyne. It will be very difficult for the mediation to arrive at any sort of positive conclusion if Cebactokpatop continues to adopt such a tone of incivility. As mediator, could you help to steer the discussion in the direction of greater civility? It would be a big help. Seminarist (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seminarist, yes I'll try. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you side in this dispute, that is the end of your mediation on that article. I will suggest you to stay focused on the article and within the role you are playing. Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cebactokpatop, I don't think that trying to intimidate a mediator is a constructive approach. Seminarist (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I wonder if you'd be willing to add your signature to the RfC on Cebactokpatop? This will help the RfC to proceed.

Regards, Seminarist (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baronetcy_of_Srebrenica

This is not a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHollisCollier (talk • contribs) 10:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I am new to this, but please do not delete the article - I will get it up to scratch, I am not sure if I can do it by the end of the day, but soon. My research assistant is the technological one, I will ask him to help. DrHollisCollier (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ASSIST Continued vandalism by User:Blist14 on wiki article about Bill Ayers

New user, Blist14, continues to delete biography, references, external links, and categories from Bill Ayers wikipedia page, user has no other wiki history other than deleting items from Bill Ayers article, please assist and advise. It is me i think (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Blist14 has been temporarily blocked. It is me i think (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take That Musical

Hi Phil. Thankyou for freezing the Never Forget (Musical) Article. A similar 'edit war' is going on on both the Take That and Gary Barlow Pages. The anonymous user (Who has changed IP address several times this morning) Has had my username (Light Defender) blocked as a result. I have now been forced to change my own IP address in order to request the above 2 articles also be frozen until the issue is resolved. Many Thanks 81.154.11.74 (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (Light Defender)[reply]

Hello, Phil. I might be able to fix the Never Forget controversy. It is well-documented that the band Take That made the statement on its website that the editor quoted, and numerous news articles have described the controversy. However, the placement of the information in the article was not well balanced. I would be happy to try to present the information in the article in a more balanced way. Editor Light Defender was overly sensitive to the issue, I think, because he is new to Wikipedia and is involved in the production of the musical Never Forget. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit war has subsided, based on the discussions at the article talk page and the talk page of User:Light Defender. Can you unprotect? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please...

... release the case you were mediating, related to John Zizioulas page, by settig the status to "failed". There is no need to hold it anymore. Thank you. Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close the case. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for closing the case. However, you are a big disappointment. You are warning me for "personal insults" being at the same time blind for all personal insults towards me. When that individual said "Once again, you are ignoring all the reasons presented against your claims. Maybe you are incapable of reasoning..." [3] you turned a blind eye... People like you are suitable neither for administrator roles, nor for mediator roles. If you have any dignity, you would resign on your position on Wikipedia. Cebactokpatop (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cebactokpatop, it has been over a year since a case was unsuccessful in a similar manner to this, and that time also, I had several other cases open. I'm not convinced that resigning my current case load would be of benefit to the project. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to let you know that I'm sorry that the mediation broke down in the way it did. I found you to be evenhanded as a mediator (even when you didn't concur with proposals I made), and I found you to be genuinely concerned to work for a positive conclusion. Thanks for your efforts and trouble. Seminarist (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is in line with what I expected. Excuses. Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More incivility from Cebactokpatop. Seminarist (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper

Thank you for your interest in List of Army Fortresses in Japan. Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper I have made an attempt to find references for the article and could find nothing to support the assertions made. Consensus is leading to keep and improve, but I am not seeing where improve is an option. If I am mistaken and there are references available please add them to the article. Jeepday (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Wikilawyering_by_DanaUllman

I'm sorry, I've read this about four times, and I still can't quite piece togetehr what either you or Dana is saying. Can you spell it out a bit more? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shoemaker's Holiday, I've replied by email. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea

Hi. Sory to bother but since you came to Talk:North Korea there has been some developments. Can I ask you to tell me if the MedCab mediation that is taking place is not a bit inappropriate (according to the MedCab page "The Mediation Cabal is a bunch of volunteers providing unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia. We do not impose sanctions or make judgments. We at MedCabal are not at all official and are just ordinary Wikipedians. We facilitate communication and help parties reach an agreement by their own efforts.") or if I'm completely out of line (in which case I apologize to the mediator in advance). Thanks. Mthibault (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mthibault, on the case page I've asked Jeremy about this, and he has clarified that he was merely offering an opinion, not making a content ruling. PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter People Editing The Stephanie Adams Article

Hello, there seems to be a lot of animosity and bitterness by users who have been editing the article on Stephanie Adams, even on the discussion page. Can you please step in and stop people from making personal attacks against the subject matter? This woman obviously does not know anyone of them personally and her article should no longer be edited by people who clearly have some sort of gripe against her. If they do not like her, then perhaps they should write about someone else. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When considering this request from 71.167.226.96 please be aware that she has referred to other editors as "sicko", "retard", "idiot", "flunky" and peppers her contributions with "You took your hand off your little thing between your legs long enough to type" and other such comments. (Her contribution to Talk:Stephanie Adams at [4].) So, yes, there does seem to be an inappropriate amount of animosity and personal attacks from people who have some sort of gripe. But let's be clear on who is actually the source. -- Sean Martin (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am a "he", not a "she". Second, I never left comments like that and am starting to wonder if you are mentally all there. Sean Martin, stop obsessing over Stephanie Adams and stop leaving personal attacks about her on her discussion page just because she sued your friend and beat him. Miss Adams does not know you and will never want to know you. End of story. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I never left comments like that" Just follow the link I provided. If not you then someone coming thru the exact same IP address and clearly you should look much closer to home when admonishing folks to stop personal attacks. (Any confusion, if it exists, could be easily alleviated if you got a named Wiki account. Avoiding anonymity would also help credibility.) "stop leaving personal attacks about her on her discussion page" Please provide even one example. "she sued your friend and beat him" You can keep saying that, but it will remain untrue. She has threatened and harassed, but not sued any friends of mine. Assuming her suit against James Poling is what you are referring to, again, I've never met him, never spoken to him, do not know him personally, am not friends with him.
If you want me to stop posting, stop leaving postings containing falsehoods about me. I will continue to respond to any postings you or anyone makes that do. I'll stop the moment you do. Up to you. -- Sean Martin (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Commons

You Speedy Closed an IFD because the picture was already on commons. I was wondering, since it's on commons, can't we take it out of the Bad Images category here so it stays off of wikipedia? It's not in use and therefore not helping anyone. Undeath (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Undead warrior, the speedy close was by ViperSnake151; my involvement was merely to offer an opinion. PhilKnight (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Phil:

May I please know why the reaction to User:OddibeKerfeld, for doing the same thing as they were warned against last week, was another gentler welcome/warning?

I realize you are doing a tough job on AIV, and that I don't know the whole picture.

To me, the gentle treatment that this character (and others) is given makes it seem pointless to post warnings.

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wanderer57, having looked again, I agree that I should have taken a tougher approach. I've given a final warning, and will block if the unsourced negative content is reintroduced. PhilKnight (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I liked Addhoc better...

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.
Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.
Thank you again, VanTucky

Thanks

Thanks. Master Redyva♠ 23:02, April 23, 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts on homeopathy?

I'm actually pleased to hear that you believe that my assumptions are wrong about you or perhaps other wiki editors who have commented in the Arb Committtee section on homeopathy [5], but you didn't yet prove me wrong. What are YOUR thoughts on the validity of homeopathic medicine as a therapeutic modality (separate from placebo effects)? Please know that I have no problem being proven wrong, though you haven't yet shown me that this is the case. DanaUllmanTalk 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana, in my understanding, I don't have to prove you wrong. Also, I'm not required to state my opinion about this or any other subject. As it happens, I have previously said that I'm not a skeptic. However, I don't intend to answer detailed questions about my views. PhilKnight (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly realize that you do not have to prove me wrong, but because your evidence to the Arbitration Committee asserted that I was wrong, you do need to provide evidence that this is true. If not, please consider crossing it out. DanaUllmanTalk 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef tag for sock talks

I noticed you tagged a bunch of sockpuppet usertalk pages with {{indef}}, was that intentional? They've since been deleted under CAT:TEMP but I thought we didn't do that with socks since we might need to record to prove other socks later--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Doug, I thought current practice was to delete their usertalk pages, and keep the user page. Also looking at my deleted contributions most of the deletions are because I use {{uw-block3}}, which automatically puts the page in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's not what it says at CAT:TEMP, but that doesn't really mean anything. I don't know where this is in any policy. My understanding was that socks should never be tagged with any of the indef block tags for exactly this reason and if they are they should either be replaced with an appropriate sock tag or should at least have {{Do not delete}} added. The page that brought me here was Special:Undelete/User talk:Grounded into a double play which is one of User:EddieSegoura's socks, several of which had their user talk pages deleted. I'm going to check with User:Pathoschild for further guidance.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pathoschild recommends blanking and redirecting the talk page to the userpage and tagging the userpage with the sock tag, but apparently sees no reason to undo what has been done here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 07:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vancouver island university

I spent a good amount of time adjusting and updating this page, and your dismissal of my work without any dialogue is both unprofessional and completely out of line. Please explain your actions. What is your association with this school that makes your thoughts superior to mine? This is injust on every imaginable level. I look forward to hearing your answer, and it would be ill advised to make your answer based off 'wikipedia procedure'. You are attempting to control a public information exchange, and you should be ashamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickdoering (talk • contribs)

Hi Nick, you uploaded Image:VIUlogo.png, and I added the appropriate templates to the image page, adjusted the article formatting so the image appeared properly, and left you a welcome note. I didn't make any other edits. Looking at your talk page, I guess that Cahk (talk · contribs) is at least aware of what you are talking about, and I suggest you follow his advice and discuss the matter at Talk:List of universities in British Columbia.--PhilKnight (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Austin Weird

What's defamatory about the edits I made to Keep Austin Weird? I linked to the pages of Leslie Cochran and Jennifer Gale. Each has extensive referrences. I didn't make up anything about them. I don't understand you. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either include the content with a decent reference, or drop the subject. You're getting to the stage where you could be blocked as a disruptive editor. Please stop wasting other editors time with this. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add the references for Jennifer Gale and Leslie Cochran and add it back in. Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]