User talk:PhilKnight/Archive83

Invitation to join the January 2012 Move to Commons Drive

You got this message since you added yourself to the last time or is a member that stated yourself for moving files or related help. If you do not want notification for a future drive, please add yourself to this list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Images and Media at 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Advice on Next Steps Please

Hi Phil, I'm looking for a bit of advice. I've become a little involved in editing an article Australian Christian Lobby which probably has some issues. There are two editors involved Freikorp and sam56mas. The latter hasn't responded to any attempts to discuss the article placed by Freikorp or myself. Freikorp tried to trigger a peer review to look at the article as he himself has some concerns about the neutrality of the article and the quality of some of the references used, although the reviewing editor pointed out that this wasn't the correct forum.

Can you advise us where to go or what to do now, the article needs some attention, but both Freikorp and I are concerned about getting into an edit war given that sam56mas isn't willing to enter into discussion? Surely there's a better way to go about it than just doing the edits and dealing with it once the war has kicked off so to speak. Any advice would be much appreciated. --Deadly∀ssassin 15:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DeadlyAssassin, I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. Given the complexity of the issues, I would suggest the next stage should be informal mediation, and if there are more serious problems you could try either a Request for Comment on content or formal mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Phil, I'll pass that onto Freikorp. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Images from "hale School" Page

Hi there, I am aware theat you recently deleted some images from the hale school page which I recently added. May I know why ? I am sure I adheared to the guidelines. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeosl (talk • contribs) 12:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yeosl, I think there's been a slight misunderstanding. In 2009, I deleted an image called File:Hale library.jpg for lacking a non-free rationale. [1] However, the image you uploaded to the commons was recently deleted by Martin H. as a copyright violation. [2] PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach!

Outreach Star
For you, Phil, for all your help at the first Liverpool Lounge today. --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threat from a fellow user at Sinhala Wikipedia

The user called Meema at Sinhala Wikipedia has put a threatening comment in my user page. Basically he charges that I have edited a User page. I edited a sub page of another user. I believe user pages are not owned by individual users. Additionally this sub page contained an Essay written by that user. He further charges me that I have voted against a user who is presently an Administrator during his RFA voting. This too I believe is one of my rights. He further suggests me similar to a blocked user. I really do not know why he is trying to tarnish my image by such comments. Since an Administrator is involved in this matter, I am unable to complain to them. Please intervene and resolve this matter. ---ගිල්ගමෙෂ් (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry, but you'll have to resolve this issue on the Sinhala Wikipedia, as the English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction there. PhilKnight (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you, Phil, for your help. Afrankwiki (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffreyp7

This is a user you blocked indefinitely after three edits almost three years ago who now says he's grown up and wants to contribute constructively. Do you think we can give him a new chance? Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I've restored the messages previously posted to his user talk page in order to provide context as to why he was blocked. Anyway, I have no objections to him being unblocked, and if you feel he deserves a second chance, my suggestion is to go ahead and unblock him. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm going to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Single rationale

Template:Single rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 04:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Geoffreyp7

Just wanted to let you know that you blocked User talk:Geoffreyp7 back in 2008; he's requesting an unblock, but I think he could use a second chance. I've pinged User talk:Daniel Case (who placed the unblock request on hold but may have forgotten to act on it) to see what he thinks about it. If you have anything to add, that would be appreciated. –MuZemike 09:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MuZemike, Daniel has already contacted me about this. Have a look at the 8th thread on this page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad RFC

Given the mess that was the discussion at WT:NOT which led to 100k words of discussion how is it plausible that an RFC will actually achieve anything beyond delaying an Arbcom case and creating a ton of drama? It's quite clear that basically all of the participants are accused of acting in poor faith by at least one of the other people involved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eraserhead1, thanks for posting. Could you explain what you are hoping to get out of an arbitration case? My thoughts are that ArbCom can't resolve the content issue, so all that would happen is that ArbCom would facilitate a binding RfC. I acknowledge there are accusations of bad faith, but I'm somewhat doubtful that the user conduct rises to the level of requiring sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quick reply - much appreciated. I think there are a few conduct issues here that do really need addressing. Apologies in advance for the wall of text.
  • Firstly there is the issue that the people who like the status quo think that those who want change have been pushing their case too hard, and then there are accusations of bad faith the other way - primarily my insistence that those who like the status quo agree to give some ground. Now that everyone has been accused of bad faith openly it will be really hard to produce a good result.
  • Secondly and kinda relatedly there is the issue of compromise, which I have pushed pretty hard for. I would say that that's legitimate and those against me would say I'm bullying. And they have a point - the WP:DR policy doesn't explicitly state that compromise is required. And its perfectly possible that as they've been involved in this dispute for a long time they've lost sight of the wood for the trees.
I guess the lack of explicit mention of compromise is mainly aimed at cases like Ireland where the obvious compromise (having it as a disambiguation page) is clearly worse than making Ireland about the island or about the country as the current status quo means at least some people get to the page they want first time. The other reason that its not explicit is to stop people gaming the system by pushing for compromise after compromise. The other side of the coin, which is my position is that this case is a good one for compromise, and there hasn't been lots of compromise before (as you can see from my updated evidence, the number of controversial images has been in ratio with the content size since the beginning of 2007), and therefore not compromising is unreasonable and gaming the other way. Overall some neutral eyes on it would be great.
  • Thirdly, Ludwigs. Personally I think he's often correct and argues well, but sometimes he doesn't follow through with his logical self - a case of this is here where he doesn't retract his argument. Its not a big conduct issue, but I can imagine it being extremely annoying. Additionally he forces people to lose face when they lose points to him which is bad by pushing them a bit harder than he should. I think probably some mentoring would do him good, but as WP:ANI is broken and he knows it, I don't think there is any other venue where a neutral group will look at his behaviour and come up with some good recommendations. I think that will be really positive for both sides.
  • Fourthly locking down the content. There is a significant benefit to this dispute of locking down a solution for a few years - it'll calm everyone down and be much more satisfactory than the current approach of WP:BITEing the newcomers and coming over really inflexibly and calling anyone who complains a troll. Unless we take this here we can't get that lockdown. I'd much rather lock down the status quo than get Resolute's proposal without locking it down and then deal with the inevitable complaining afterwards. No-one seems to care about Ireland anymore even now that its come of lockdown.
  • Finally maybe the conduct issues aren't that serious, but if the evidence is looked at then we can get somewhere - I don't believe any of the editors took anything on board from Ludwigs' earlier request here (quite rightly, it was content) being declined. The worst case scenario is that its a quick case - not something I think is a problem!
Additionally please feel free to forward this onto the rest of the committee (if I haven't written too much). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki

This revision contains insulting content as well. Calabe1992 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calabe, I've revision deleted the edit. Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Page

Hi PhilKnight, Yes it's ok to archive the page. Thank you, GingerSaucier 21:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GingerSaucier (talk • contribs)

TM Arbcom

Hey Phil if you wish any further clarification please drop me a note on my talk page. I am not watching the Arbcom issues. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

  • File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
  • Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
  • Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Signpost article

Hey PhilKnight!

I am writing an article for the Signpost -- the next Arbitration Report -- and I have a question concerning the composition of the AUSC. With the promotion of AUSC members to the full Arbitration Committee, will there be a 'soon-to-come' election process for the two vacant at-large seats?

Thanks & Happy New Year, Lord Roem (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lord Roem, it's something we've been discussing since the ArbCom elections reduced the number of at-large members to one. A formal announcement will follow shortly, however, yes we intend to find two more members in due course. PhilKnight (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to continue? Proper forum?

Hi PhilKnight, another User:Ronz and I have a disagreement related to some reviews added to the “further reading” – section (Talk:Cranberry and Talk:Pomegranate). Both of us are unsure about how to proceed – what could be the proper forum for our difference in opinion? Do you have time to take a look? It is not urgent. Granateple (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Granateple, I suggest requesting informal mediation at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Alternatively, you could consider a Request for Comment. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your swift reply and for your suggestion. Granateple (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
thanks for the great work on the article I started Androzaniamy (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revival of COTM

Hi,

You may be aware that Collaboration of the Month has been revived by members of WP: India. For January 2012 there are 2 articles - Indian COTM - Premchand and Indian COTM for GA - Mahatma Gandhi. As a senior and respected editor you are requested to partake in this activity. Cheers, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

Dear PhilKnight, what can I possibly expect from asking for a review of my block on RFC/USER? Magog the Ogre himself said "I don't think an RFC/U on me will get real far". I think the second issue can be resolved through the RFC or ANI but not the first one. I also like to point out that despite my arbitration request the same behavior is continuing (1) and (2). What shall I do when again actions are being taken in an unbalanced way in the future (especially considering that Magog made the threat of "indefinite")? I am really no disruptive editor and everyone will see that especially checking my contribution pre-17 Nov, 2011 (before encountering TopGun, where the only disputes were with User:Lagoo sab/socks). It is unacceptable that Magog makes these kind of threats for just one revert restoring a consensus version and completely ignores the behavior of the other editor. Other administrator see through TopGun's behavior[3][4], but unfortunately, Magog doesn't and acts on TopGun's requests which is not appropriate and not productive for wikipedia. So what would need to be different to have the arbitration accepted to finally find some sort of solution? Kind regards, JCAla (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JCAla, I wouldn't be put off just because Magog says that - if you believe there are concerns, file a Request for Comment at WP:RFC/ADMIN. If after trying to resolve the problems using the RfC process, you can always request arbitration again. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you very much. I will consider this. JCAla (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

I'm really mad about your deeds. I wrote an answer for you in my talk page. I would be glad if you'll check it there. RoyTek (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy, I've replied on your talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction 8.2

I've taken a glance through the editing histories of the named parties and there is very little evidence of much crossover with other Islamic topics. Looking through the contributions lots of people have edited biographies, but there doesn't appear to be much crossover with particular ones, and there are plenty who haven't edited either.

The only parties who have edited articles on Islam that I could see are User:Johnbod, User:Jayen466, User:Alanscottwalker and User:Amatulic - but there doesn't - at least at first glance appear to be much crossover on which particular articles they have edited. The only article that caught my eye that two people had edited was around Santorum.

While its obviously possible that the dispute will spill out of Muhammad to other unrelated articles that seems pretty unlikely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eraserhead1, thanks for letting me know your thoughts on this. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

As the blocking admin, would you like to comment on User talk:Jibajabba  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron, I have no objections to an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it - four years is probably long enough :) Manning (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]