User talk:PhilKnight/Archive97

== Vartan Gregorian photo Dr. Gregorian requested an updated photo of himself. I uploaded his current photo and return it to the previous one.Ronald Sexton (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qwery1212 unblocked

You blocked this user in 2014 for vandalism, which they were most certainly engaged in. They filed a request via UTRS and I elected to go ahead and and unblock to give them another chance instead of making them wait. Hope you don't mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC) how bout that phiknight you were being a racist the i got unblock thanks beeblebrox philknight you are so inconsiderate you didnt even give me a chance you should do your job or ill do it for you rasity[reply]

Well, I gave them the WP:ROPE and that's what they elected to do with it, reblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question

I changed my username and you accepted it, but it still shows up as Walking Talking Stephen Hawking.

Why?

You haven't changed your username. You need to put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to let you know that your tireless work monitoring CAT:UNBLOCK has gone neither unnoticed nor unappreciated. A while ago, I briefly resolved to handle a request for each of my own blocks that popped up in the category; I don't think I made it to even half a dozen before giving up, so I have some small idea of how miserable a task it is. If you're into pictures of barnstars or whatnot, consider yourself as having gotten a big, shiny one from me. —Cryptic 02:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Seeba Bhatia

I think you made a mistake in deleting Seeba Bhatia as an WP:A3. It had plenty of content before it was vandalised. It was also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeba Bhatia. -- GB fan 11:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Project

Hi Phil - I'm working on a project with a couple friends to crowd-source information about consumer brands to allow people to more easily make informed purchases. We're planning to have a administrator community on the site, but haven't worked out exactly how it should function yet. You obviously have significant experience in site administration. I would love to pick your brain for a half an hour or so if you would be willing.Megaryel (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking me to allow a username change request [1]. I have taken the initiative to put in a request here [2]. I appreciate your help. Regards--Cuckservative (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can add a speedy deletion tag on a sock puppet investigation page?

A sock puppet investigation page was created ,a tag on that page is – This SPI case is open. ,the investigation under process. Can we add a speedy deletion tag for this page? Sock puppet investigation pages(Under process) are eligible for speedy deletion? (Okmikjnuhb (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Not normally no. PhilKnight (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This probably relates to a decidedly abnormal case. Bogus SPI pages created by socks of a blocked user Nsmutte to harass editors may be speedied as G3 or G5. And those created as talk pages of non-existent SPIs or because the SPI page has been salted are also subject to speedy G8. See:
and probably others I didn't notice. Meters (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not unexpectedly, the user chose to interpret the reply "Not normally" above to mean "Never under any circumstances" and now uses it as an argument to continue the trolling [3] :-( --bonadea contributions talk 17:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Drtyrell

You're likely watching the page, but just figured I'd let you know they replied.

By the way, do you remember me? :) Amaury (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amaury, yes, thanks for that. No, sorry, I don't remember you. PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We interacted once a very long time ago when I was still Eugene Krabs, I believe, and you blocked me. But no worries, I didn't expect you to since that's really the only one time we interacted. Heh. Amaury (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global renamer

Hi. As you're active at WP:RFU and often do requests for username changes, I wonder if you've thought about requesting the Global Renamer right? If you have that, a "Rename" link shows up in the unblock request template and you just click that and it's done. This was my recent request, which went smoothly enough. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the info, I'll consider it. PhilKnight (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer request

Regarding Kbabej's request to be unblocked for socking per the standard offer, it appears that in the registered accounts he has listed as socks, one of them (Helpmechoose54) was created in November, which puts him outside the 6 month no-socks window for standard offer consideration. Using that rule, he would not be eligible for the standard offer until May. I have been involved in all of the sock spotting and SPI reports for Kbabej's socks, and am very familiar with his modus operandi. That said, without giving too much away, I'd like to suggest that given the stubborn propensity he has shown for editing regardless of his block, and his propensity to create numerous sleeper accounts, that there may be others he has not listed. Further, I am convinced that if a CU is run on the Helpmechoose54 account and the other still active and not blocked that he listed against some of the most recent socks reported that did not pan out, you will find IP similarities that were not present with the other socks tagged and blocked prior to August or September. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I filed an SPI on both of the sock accounts, but it was closed with no CU run. The clerk claimed denied the request stating the accounts were stale. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock - nameswitch

Hi Phil. Thanks for the unblock some days ago. As you can see, my account is still operating as "Fudgepack", and I take it User:Roy Howard Mills is awaiting creation. I was of the impression that the process was that my past edits would be transferred to the newly requested account. Is this so? Or do I need to create the new one fresh? Fudgepack (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please put the name change request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. PhilKnight (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just done it, well, I hope I did it properly. Meanwhile I won't edit from now until the change is complete unless I have to correct my error. --Fudgepack (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the rename for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User D4iNa4

Hello PhilKnight,

D4iNa4 (talk · contribs) who was once blocked by admins for using various sockpuppets, continues disruptive editings. Can you please check Yazdanism (and the source, Richard Foltz)? l have fixed the statement depending on what the source says and cleaned previous version per WP:SYNTH policy. You can read the source to check it. However, the editor reverted me two times for dubious reasons. The lndian editor clearly pushes his/her nationalist pov in almost every topic. Please check the editor's contributions. Regars...46.221.194.168 (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Can you please watch the Yazdanism? lt would be nice if an admin intervene it fastly. Maybe @Anthony Bradbury: may comment on it too.46.221.194.168 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite IP block

Hello PhilKnight. You indefinitely blocked 210.55.186.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in 2014. Per WP:IPBLENGTH, I request that you set a reasonable finite duration. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJMC89, I've unblocked. Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On blocking Wikipedia editing from some IP ranges

Thank you for your prompt reply: I will comply by disconnecting from any VPN provider everytime I intend to edit Wikipedia pages. However, please, I just want to ask you why blocked IP ranges have priority on accounts' activity history? Is it just due to my short account history and to my few contributions to the date or otherwise VPN (and TOR, I suppose) use while editing are forbidden for everyone? Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're forbidden for everyone else. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

‎Amendment request on arbitration decision against Rodhullandemu

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Rodhullandemu and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --George Ho (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian film score composers

Please see my proposal to rename/upmerge: Hugo999 (talk)

Category:Malayalam film composers to Category:Malayalam film score composers

Thank you for the unblock

I appreciate your time and the opportunity to allow me to learn as much as possible now.Prplns (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/1996 Lebanon war

Template:Editnotices/Page/1996 Lebanon war 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 W. (talk · ctb) 22:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew and moved the editnotices to their target pages. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/2004 Israel–Gaza conflict

Template:Editnotices/Page/2004 Israel–Gaza conflict 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 W. (talk · ctb) 22:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew and moved the editnotices to their target pages. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock?

Hello. You recently blocked this sock of an IP with multiple other socks. I believe I have found yet another - 87.112.27.223 - which geolocates to the same area in southern Britain and is editing in the same disruptive manner. Thanks, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 08:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoctorJoeE, thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the user as a sock puppet. PhilKnight (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

about last week sockpuppet's case (84101e40247) you solved, as i feared the user started creating new socks (i've found just this so far, Byutr, who made the same edit as Kaijolau, but you could be able to find others, such as Atuje, which i didn't found last week) because his IP range wasn't blocked. please, let me know whether you can take care of the problem or not, thanks! 2A03:F480:1:3:0:0:0:66 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the IP range isn't feasible in this instance, there are too many IPs and there would be too much collateral damage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You placed a one week sock block on my alternate account, Mage Resu! I created that account to avoid impersonation/confusion, since that is the name used in my signature. Could you change the one week hard block to an indefinite soft block? Thank you! Mage Resu (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of Garr1984

Hi, it is in my opinion that you can safely revoke Garr1984's talk page access to User talk:Garr1984, since the false allegation of vandalism against me after I removed clearly explicit content about Drew Pickles in List of Rugrats characters in 2013, as well as their aggressive pattern of edits, does not demonstrate any evidence that the user is willing to contribute positively under the said user name if the unblock appeal was granted, if ever.

To quote Huon when they declined the unblock request (on 2 November 2015): "You said before that you'd abide by the rules and "refrain from making any kinds of attacks against other users" and then proceeded to engage in personal attacks." My experience with Garr1984 when the user added explicit content about Drew Pickles backs this quote perfectly. --Marianian(talk) 01:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSD request

Hi, you recently took care of my userspace CSD G7s today. I have 8 category G6s pending at Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion. If you have the time, would you mind processing them as well? They're the last step of a category-tree migration that I'd like to wrap up. If not, that's ok; someone else will find 'em.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promo socks

Hi PhilKnight. Sorry to poke you directly. Two new users working in concert, one whose autoblock you lifted[4] after a very weird request, the other creating some very promotional content, seem to operating in a way typical of larger SEO sock farms. Maybe you'd like to take another look and see if there's an appropriate drawer? -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, PhilKnight. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)