User talk:PhilKnight/Archive72

Advice on me

Hi PhilKnight. I want to get your advice because you were the one (sorry) who had to go through our mediation process on this Chinese Room topic. I've now had something posted on my Talk page making insinuations about my presence on Wikipedia and my motivations for editing. The sudden scrutiny into unrelated work (right after the mediation) makes me feel bullied. I really want to ignore it but I'd appreciate some neutral advice: Is there really a problem with my contributions? I know I've edited in good faith, and I am open to scrutiny. I just want to keep moving through proper channels on this one issue. If you have a moment, I welcome anything you might say about my own conduct or how you suggest I continue. Please feel free to post on my Talk page or anywhere. Thanks a million. Reading glasses (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and advice. Reading glasses (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your lightning fast anti-vandalism work! FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bircham International University

I am puzzled by Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-08/Bircham International University. First off, it is "interesting" that I am not named as a party to the dispute, considering that the article history indicates that I have made more revisions to that article than anyone else. (I believe JzG was involved with it largely in connection with repeated pleas that the article's subject made to OTRS. The article subject has historically tried to make private deals with OTRS volunteers, meanwhile making blanket statements to the effect that all other contributors to the article are engaged in vendettas against BIU.) Secondly, the article logs show no indication that the article has ever been protected, although the mediation request specifically asked for it to be unprotected, and I recall that it has been protected in the past. Has the article's log somehow been expunged? Third, I am puzzled to see that no comment was made after a user account (Raissa Rouse) that is freely self-identified as being a representative of Bircham International University started editing the Bircham International University article. All this gives me the distinct impression that a deal was made to which I am not privy. --Orlady (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady, I can assure you that if deals have been made, MedCab would be the last to know. I guess it's possible that some of the article history has been oversighted? However without oversight privileges, I can't tell. However, I can tell you there isn't any non-oversighted deleted history, because that would be visible with ordinary admin priviliges. Regarding the new user account, I have left a note about conflict of interest. I guess the next thing to do is notify JzG of the case. Obviously, you're most welcome to add yourself as a party. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any oversighting going on, all I know is that this is almost certainly William Martin continuing his years-long campaign to whitewash Bircham. Google Bircham International University and follow the links; he is incredibly tenacious in following up any critical material at all and engaging in SEO to try and get his word in first and last in any searches. I reckon I'd do the same in his position, but I would not be in his position because I would not run an unaccredited institution, least of all one offering degrees in pseudoscientific quackery. Inciedntally, this is now at ANI, there's more detail there. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in taking on a case?

I had left a note for The Wordsmith, but he unfortunately had a conflict of interest and would not take the case. Could you take a look at User talk:The Wordsmith#Dispute that could use your touch and see whether or not you would be interested in taking on that dispute? NW (Talk) 18:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to help. Is this going to be a MedCab or MedCom case? Also, are you going to be co-mediating? PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that MedCab would be better, as SlimVirgin has already rejected formal mediation at this time. I'll ask on the talk page of the article if everyone would be fine with the mediation. Also, I will be gone the next week or so. If that will not impact things too much, I would be happy to co-mediate with you. NW (Talk) 18:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of insurance company pages (again)

Note: A new editor, 207.145.212.178, has begun vandalizing the Aetna page in a manner identical to previous vandalism (of CIGNA as well) by user: 207.145.212.178, user: 74.215.128.82 and user: 129.137.84.171 (who were eventually blocked).

Thanks, Danieldis47 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation and the Christ myth theory

The Christ myth theory page has been locked due to edit warring. A number of editors have agreed to mediation under your oversight to settle the more contentious issues. But two of the more active and controversial editors have not: SlimVirgin & Sophia As these editors are the most active representatives of one "side" of this dispute, could you gently encourage them to agree to the mediation? My attempts seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Eugene (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eugene, thanks for letting me know. I've now read the article and talk page, so hopefully I can start to lend a hand soon. To be honest, given that SlimVirgin & Sophia are still posting on the talk page, I'm not overly worried about their decision. PhilKnight (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIV and 216.64.230.76

Hello. In looking for information regarding User talk:216.64.230.76 which I submitted to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism here, it appears that User:HBC AIV helperbot7 removed that entry along with another one after a block you made diff. No action was taken for the 216.64.230.76 nor a comment made declining it, so I didn't want to relist it until I knew if it was "working as designed" or an actual issue. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrDolomite, I don't know what happened there - usually the bot is reliable. Anyway, I've blocked the IP. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Room

I'm not really interested in simply repeating the things I've already said, and that seems to be all that's going on in this present discussion, so I'm unwatchlisting the mediation page. However I will repeat myself one more time here. I think our policies are pretty clear that material has to be published in reliable sources before we can include it in Wikipedia. In the case of The Chinese Room (film), what is being put forth as 'sources' are the advance listings on the websites of two film festivals where the movie was shown. These are essentially advertisements for the movie. And as such can not be considered reliable sources. Imho, that this film was in fact shown at film festivals such as the Bare Bones Film Festival in Muskogee, Oklahoma and was not even able to generate coverage in the local Muskogee media speaks volumes as to whether it should be mentioned in Wikipedia. If the interested editors continue to try to insert this without providing independent reliable sources, I will pursue some form of dispute resolution. Dlabtot (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration of Phil Tadros

I would like to request reconsideration of the Phil Tadros article, as well as get your ideas on what the article was lacking that let to the deletion. Please see my user page for the deleted version. I think the article has some decent sources and was speedied too ... speedily. :) Thanks. Trustcitedonce (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trustcitedonce, I've restored the article. The page was deleted under the proposed deletion process, and there weren't any objections after 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PhilKnight. I'll be sure to fix up those incorrect citations. Trustcitedonce (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eng-Tips

There's a low level dispute going on over at Eng-Tips Forums‎, I am unsure how to handle it. The president of the company has indicated to me (I am a member of the Eng-Tips Round Table, which advises management on site operations) that he would like to remove all references to him in that context from wiki. The reasons are good, and relate partially to the activities of a Boeing engineer, who has emailed me as well. An IP editor from Boeing is repeatedly attempting to reintroduce that data onto the page. I appreciate that if Dave doesn't want his name on wiki then he shouldn't advertise it on his own site, he is just trying to make it a little harder for the spiteful to find him. Can you have a think about it? Greglocock (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Greglocock (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me?

I've already contacted another admin for help about this, but they didn't respond back to me. If you look at the history of Funk and 7, the pages have been vandalized in the past month. Including that Funk has been vandalized 23 times in the past two weeks. Could you possibly place the pages under semi-protection? Thanks in advance! 71.252.203.153 (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected Funk, but the amount of vandalism for 7 is somewhat lower, and I'm not sure that semi-protection is necessary. Just so you know, you can always request protection at WP:Request for page protection. PhilKnight (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal Klinger

Slightly confused as to the block reason, they have no edits. Did you even actually check to see what the abuse filter hits were, since I'm really only seeing one that's questionable and that one is hardly blatant enough to warrant a non-warning indef. Q ^T C 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're considering an unblock, then I don't have any objections. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize after I hit enter that it sounded a bit snarky, sorry about that. Q ^T C 22:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Wiki.png

On the page File talk:Wiki.png has started a discussion and voting for the file Wiki.png to be returned to older version. Please get involve in discussion. Thanks, Aleksa Lukic (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per voting on the talk page (WP:SNOW) may you revert to the version of december 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksa Lukic (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aleksa, I'm sorry, but normally a straw poll is closed by someone who didn't participate. Also, the situation is more complex, because it appears the change was made by someone acting in an official capacity as an employee of Wikimedia. That said, I'm still hopeful we can persuade them to have a change of heart. For example, it could become an option set in preferences or something. Anyway, thanks for letting me know about the straw poll. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion

I filed a requet of mediation with the Mediation Cabal as it is informal and as such the least distressing and problematic.

However after one week nothing yet has happened. If you feel there is nobody willing or able to mediate please let me know and we shall save time: I shall file a request for formal mediation straightaway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldrasto11 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aldrasto11, unfortunately there's a substantial backlog of cases at the moment. In this context, a Request for formal medition may well result in a mediator being appointed more promptly. PhilKnight (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your action, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shutterbug. Could I trouble you to log this most recent block of Shutterbug (talk · contribs), at WP:ARBSCI? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt, thanks for the prompt - I've now logged the block. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Thanks very much. I tagged the other suspected sockpuppets, from evidence at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS#Update:_Additional_confirmations_in_COFS_checkuser_case, etc. Do you think these should be blocked as well, in light of recent evidence of the (ongoing) socking behavior by the main master sock account? -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm familiar enough with this area to make that decision. PhilKnight (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THanks

Was trying to figure out how i'd screwed up that afd nom.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed at with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

May I ask your opinion? Although I thought Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-17/Donghu had been amicably settled, the problem has recurred and the previous mediator FinnCasey/JCKalmar seems to be inactive. One editor who recently had an article on this topic published has deleted all previous references and exclusively added his own. What's the best approach? Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keahapana, I've left a note on the article talk page suggesting you revert. Regarding dispute resolution, I'll re-open the Mediation Cabal case. PhilKnight (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilKnight, Thank you for your quick response. This dispute has already wasted too much time that we could have used constructively. Thanks again, Keahapana (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

Hello, PhilKnight. You did not issue a block notice for your recent block of User:Gustavo1997. Please do so, as the user should be notified that they cannot edit, how long they cannot edit, and why they have been blocked. Also, a block notice includes suggestion to get unblocked. Please do so to eliminate any confusion for users. Thanks. mono 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the notice.--mono 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for actually blocking him; the incessant helpmes are a nuisance. —fetch·comms 23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, mind blocking duck User:Gu1997 as a caution, even though that's likely abandoned for whatever reason (inactive on home ptwiki for a few weeks too)? Also, do you think the ridiculous amount of interwikis to transwikied Hebe Camargo articles on small foreign wikis is some sort of spam attempt? I've been watching it for a while, and there's also been at least 1 IP who tried to spread it to Wikinews (but was deleted), and I recall some small wiki having deleted a Hebe Camargo article, citing crosswiki spam. —fetch·comms 03:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fetchcomms, I've blocked the sock account. Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Levin

You may wish to monitor the Carl Levin article as there is an editor who insists on using questionable citations to back up the senator's lack of military experience. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice concerning etnnic-motivated edits.

Hello, I have a little problem :-). There is a certain user with whom I have a history that keeps making ethnic-based edits. His latest such contribution towards the betterment of Wikipedia is a little more unusual because it openly promotes a concept, a nationalistic one, called irredentism.

More specifically the User:Rokarudi has added a map illustrating a territorial administrative division which ceased to exist almost 150 years ago and which is at this moment is used for depicting the territorial autonomy initiative of the Szekely minority in Romania, has added this map on articles describing settlements which used to belong to that unit almost 150 years ago. Edit samples: [2], [3], [4].

My arguments against his edits are the following :

• "Szekely land" ceased to exist almost 150 years ago and has no official recognition in any way, neither in Romania nor the European Union.
• It is not a geographical region per se, and the User:Rokarudi has used it in the lead, which is innapropriate and promotes irredentism.
• "Szekely land" is listed as one of the irredentism movements in Europe : [5] under Europe/Hungarian. Note: "Szekely land" is a Hungarian claimed region in Transylvania, Romania.
• Also WP:PROMOTION (that deals with nationalistic promotions)

Using in the lead, "Szekely land" has clear irredentism conotations. Like I said, there is an initiative, spearheaded by an ethnic Hungarian party UDMR which would make the Szekler Land concept an official one. As of today they have not managed to achieve this, yet the User:Rokarudi claims this is a "reality" [6], [7].

To sum it up, the User:Rokarudi openly promotes Hungarian irredentism by adding the mentioned map in various articles about settlements, mentioning the respective settlement as still belonging to the "Szekely land".

This user has previously tried to make other ethnic-based edits that have no place on an encyclopedia and failed after mediation was initiated ( [8], [[9]], [10]). I have to mention that I tried talking about the issue[11],[12] but the user blindly reverts, avoids any conversation to reach a consensus, offers no valid arguments for changes, except nationalistic ones and I believe he just enjoys edit warring.

With this message I am seeking your counsel on the matter and viable disciplinary action against User:Rokarudi who has a nationalistic agenda on Wikipedia. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Iadrian yu is under 2RR restriction for edit warring [13]. He rarely add material to articles, his main concern now is to systematically delete what he regards anti-Romanian edits. And leaves warnings every other day on my talk page. Rokarudi

Arbitration enforcement re User:Wikifan12345

As you're the admin who enacted a temporary topic ban on User:Wikifan12345 last year, I thought I should notify you that I have requested a permanent topic ban on this editor for ongoing policy violations. Basically he's learned nothing from the experience and is as troublesome as ever. Please see WP:AE#Wikifan12345 et al. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey buddy, guess what

sit down, f u and block me if you can, i really do not care. And check out my userpage while your at the block. wiooiw ^(talk) 18:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wippivv (talk • contribs) [reply]

Blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat

I left this message on PR talk for you - "Since you're here Phil, would you tell us whether PatW's comments above contravene "Any editor may be banned from any or all of the Prem Rawat articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility". I find his posts uncivil and an unprovoked attack on me and I shouldn't have to put up with it". Momento (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave a note on his user talk page, but I don't consider that sanctions are necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you!

PhilKnight - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  15:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Breeins latest block was only for his edit warring at one article, it did not address his long time behavior that the other 99% of the enforcement request is about and which continued yesterday. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank

To be frank, I think this entire thing reflects very poorly on you as an admin. I can understand that people make mistakes, including myself, but I find it very unprofessional that you blocked me for 7 days without making any comments on the case, and since I was unblocked, you didn't even offer me so much as a few words explanation. It makes it appear as if you didn't even read the entire AN/I case before making your decision to block. Had you read the case, you would have seen that User:Roland Rance redirects to User:RolandR and that I was 100% not guilty of any outing. Anyway, I don't expect anything from you now or in the future. I just wanted to make it known that I am disappointed in this series of events. Breein1007 (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]