User talk:PhilKnight/Archive64

Battle of Bassorah
Are you an admin? Please read the article Battle of Bassorah before editing out my speedy deletion edit. I don't believe it's fair for you to do that until you have read the article in question. It perfectly meets the criteria for speedy deletion. I am going to add that to it again. If you would like to delete it again, do so, but only after reading the article, the references, and posting your reasons. Thank You.--Velanthis (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Velanthis, I suggest you explain why the article should be deleted at Articles for deletion/Battle of Bassorah. PhilKnight (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal edits
I reverted some vandalism from 60.234.173.149 and was going to put a warning on their talk page. Then I noticed that you had blocked the IP for a year, expiring 9 June 2009, and that shortly after the vandalism resumed. I think it would look a little silly for me to add two more diffs (this and this) because they are again at "last warning". If you think I should just add another warning, please reply here, otherwise you might like to take it further. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Johnuniq, I've blocked the IP for another year, hope that's ok. PhilKnight (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... see you in thirteen months! Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlock Kidz Bop 16 for creation
I went to create the article for Kidz Bop 16 as it is now in retail stores and available nationwide but it looks like someone went to keep creating it prematurely and someone had to block it. You were one of the admins that deleted it. Can you unblock it so I can create the article? The previous 15 Kidz Bop albums have articles so I figured 16 should too. Ejfetters (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ejfetters, I've unprotected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Ejfetters (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Proactive request
This article could use the assistance of one or more mediators experienced with particularly controversial topic areas, as well as the attention of one or more uninvolved administrators. There is a typical pattern of long talk page posts, sprawling policy disputes that often take on an overall "wikilawyerish" tone, stagnant progress, and little administrative oversight. There were two arbitration cases centered around this article/topic: Requests for arbitration/Sathya and Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. Any assistance you can provide in finding editors to fill the mediator and administrator roles for the Sathya Sai Baba topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Vassyana, I've added the page to my watchlist. I'll probably take the uninvolved admin role, and file a mediation case in due course. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ryan has offered to mediate the topic: Talk:Sathya Sai Baba. Between his mediation guidance and your administrative oversight, I feel the topic is in the best hands. Thank you for volunteering to take this us personally and doing so quickly after my request. If I can be of assistance in any way, please let me know! --Vassyana (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation article is in Chaos
Hi Phil, We are happy to have you mediating the article. But do you think this mediation will start soon? Huge sections of the article are being added and deleted by multiple editors daily. Today one editor took a third of the article and put it in a spin off article without consensus. There is clear edit warring. This article needs attention and fast. Thanking you in advance. --Kbob (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Kbob, sorry I've been busy this week, however I'll find time tomorrow to make a start. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, you are a great man! :-)--Kbob (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hank Green
Hi! I came across your name because you redirected the Hank Green article (as requested) a couple of months ago. I've been working on the Hank Green article for over a year now. After three deletion reviews 1 2 3 and a lot of vandalism along the way, the article is still struggling with notability issues. I was wondering if you could maybe give me a bit of advice. My current draft of the article in my sandbox is located here. Mr. Green's first album has been ranked on a Billboard chart. (#22 on the chart for top revenue generating albums online). Am I correct in assuming that this would suffice for his notability as per WP:BAND "Has had a charted [...] album on any national music chart"? This ranking is of course not the only claim to notability but it is probably the most solid one (as per Wikipedia's guidelines, anyway). Other sources include NPR (radio interview), Fox News Mobile (interview on website), KDKA-TV (television interview), CBS (news report), etc. I would like to get the article somewhat approved before getting it up again, rather than getting it taken down once more after a deletion review. But Wikipedia is a bit of a confusing place to me:
 * -Someone suggested going to Deletion Review for overturning the last one. But I do not really disagree with the last DR (The Billboard ranking was not included yet) and the article currently redirects to Hank's brother John's page. So it seems inappropriate going to the Deletion Review.
 * -Another suggestion was posting at WP:BLPN. That was actually done a few weeks ago by another editor working on Hank Green, but it appears there was hardly any response.
 * -WP:REVIEW also seems to be meant for similar purposes.

Is there a definite way of getting approval before posting an article? I would really appreciate it if you could read my draft and maybe point out any obvious shortcomings. Any advice on how to further proceed would also be very much appreciated. Thanks! JoinTheMadVender (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi JoinTheMadVender, I've looked at the article, and it seems ok. I think you should make a request at deletion review to allow article recreation. PhilKnight (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you very much! JoinTheMadVender (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Arbitration/Requests/Case. Erik9 (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Declining speedies on an image
I'm curious why you declined the speedies on this image.--Rockfang (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rockfang, I declined the speedies and opened a FFD to give the uploader a chance to explain why s/he used a non-free image in this instance. Also, to be honest, I probably would have deleted if the image was tagged as replaceable, which I consider to be the central problem - I try to avoid deleting images for lacking a license if a suitable license can just be added. PhilKnight (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation process?
I sent you an email about this earlier today, but have not received a reply. I filed a request for mediation and am not clear how the procedure works from this point. Would you be kind enough to either reply to my email (assuming you have the time) or point me to a page where I can read about the procedure. I am posting this anonymously because as is probably already clear, the other party in the dispute is stalking me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.63.37 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Yes, I got your email, and haven't replied yet. That said, I've decided to take your case, and I'll start the mediation process later today, after completing some background reading. The mediation process is somewhat informal, however you could find Mediation Cabal/suggestions useful. PhilKnight (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed

 * Hi PhilKnight, I think I may have come to the right Administrator. Can you please help in resolving an issue in the Sathya Sai Baba article. This is about a BLP violating material which I am trying to remove from the article as per the WP:RS recommendation. The above material was discussed in WP:RS for a week and was recommended to be deleted. I would like this issue getting resolved through an administrator. I will appreciate your response in this matter. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Radiantenergy, for the Sathya Sai Baba article, Ryan Postlethwaite is going to mediate, and I'm going to be an uninvolved admin. I think deciding whether the BBC material should be included should probably be discussed with Ryan. PhilKnight (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi PhilKnight, I haven't heard anything from Ryan yet. I have some questions for you though.
 * Earlier when ever there was a dispute about Content / Source I took it to the WP:RS. Then I implemented WP:RS recommendations about those sources. I did the same this time. I took the BLP violating BBC material to RS and then independant wikipedian who looked at the case for a week made the recommendation that it should be removed. I don't see why its getting complicated this time?. Yes. There may be opposition from few editors but we have always implemented the RS board decisions anyway. I really don't see what's the problem this time?
 * So are we going to have a mediation discussion about implementing Reliable Source recommendation?. I don't see why we need a mediation after RS decided on this issue. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you link to the discussion that recommended the BBC source shouldn't be used? Also, my understanding is that recommendations from the reliable sources noticeboard aren't usually enforced by admins. PhilKnight (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable Source discussion on Alaya Rahm trial and BBC:
 * In the WP:RS - This issue was discussed by 5 editors me and 4 other very experienced wikipedians from outside the article.
 * Conclusions: 3 out of the 4 outside editors agreed that BBC should be removed due to BLP issues. They agreed Court documents from Superior Court is reliable source as well as the 'Daily Pioneer article' covering the trial can be used as the secondary source backing the primary source - the court documents of the trial. It will be BLP issue to leave the BBC material there.
 * Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question
 * By the way the discussion is not arranged by dates. So I will highlight BLP recommandations from this discussion.
 * Important BLP statements from the article.
 * User: Jehochman stated that "Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source". - He asked if the trial was covered in a secondary source. Daily Pioneer article on Sathya Sai Baba covering the trial was proposed as a secondary source for the trial. It was agreed by 3 editors that Daily Pioneer is a reliable sourced for the trial as the original Court documents are available from the Superior Court website on Alaya Rahm case.
 * RegentPark comments about BBC - "I'm having second thoughts about the BBC documentary being reliable though. I haven't seen it but documentaries of this sort typically rely on story telling ("In 1972, a young John Doe arrived at the gates of the ashram ......", that sort of thing) and also do a good job of obfuscating on actionable matters ("was this young man's broken dream all in his mind or did something happen at the ashram?"). I seriously doubt that the documentary made outright accusations in the first place. Print sources are usually a better bet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)".
 * Priyanath BLP comments: Priyanath also agreed to removing BBC material due to BLP concerns. He stated that "IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)".
 * As per this recommendation Can I go ahead and remove the BLP violating BBC material? Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Radiantenergy, thanks for providing the link. The editors who gave their views are very well respected editors, however, I'd still suggest contacting Ryan before removing the material, in order to avoid an edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also an experienced Wikipedian and I know that Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, like the BBC. It is not based on primary source material like court records. Very different interpretations about the self dismissed court case are possible and I have my own interpretation. But that is irrelevant and so are the interpretations of primary source material by other experienced Wikipedians. There is no major reputable source (and many have voiced these allegations) that has retracted any of the allegations because of this court case. Andries (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Haverhill tower clock copyright issue
Hi PhilKnight. Thanks for offering your assistance. The Walnut Square Tower Clock Foundation, Inc. (WSTCF) of Haverhill, MA was formed with three goals in mind: Raise the funds to restore the 1898 E. Howard Tower Clock at Walnut Square School in Haverhill, MA. Complete the restoration work. Publicize the historic tower clock. The first two objectives were accomplished. Earlier this year the WSTCF approached the City of Haverhill and requested space on their website to promote the E. Howard Tower Clock. WSTCF prepared the written material, took photographs and provided the descriptions for each picture. All this was then given to the City of Haverhill to place on its website: www.ci.haverhill.ma.us/resources/history/walnut-sq-clock.html However, WSTCF did not copyright any of the material. The same information that was placed on the city’s website is now being used by WSTCF to construct a Wikipedia page labeled ‘Haverhill tower clock.’ Wikipedia suspects WSTCF is using copyrighted information from the City of Haverhill’s website. Wikipedia may now delete the page if ‘possible copyright infringement’ issues are not addressed. How can WSTCF resolve this matter? --Andronikos 16:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belfry1898 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Belfry1898, have a look at Donating copyrighted materials and in particular, the Granting us permission to copy material already online section. PhilKnight (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi PhilKnight, Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I contacted the City of Haverhill yesterday 8/12/2009 for their assistance.--Belfry1898 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belfry1898 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi PhilKnight, Can the City of Haverhill simply send an e-mail stating that the material on its website was provided by WSTC? --Belfry1898 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belfry1898 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi PhilKnight, Regarding the tower clock, the City of Haverhill will tag the two pages on its website, one composed of text and the other photos. The tag will state that the material was provided courtesy of the WSTCF. Is this sufficient to resovle this copyright issue? --Belfry1898 21:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belfry1898 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Belfry1898, sorry for the delay in replying. In the context of the tag being added, I think if WSTCF were to send an email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org] indicating the content is released under a free license that would resolve the issue. PhilKnight (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sbakuria and Alexander Mashkevitch
Quick question: Am I right in thinking that the RFC has to run for 30 days before further steps to resolve the issue are taken? Rtdixon86 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rtdixon86, I'm not aware of there being a guideline about 30 days, however that's probably a reasonable time for the subject of the RfC to either respond or improve their conduct. I guess the next stage could be to propose a block or ban on the incident noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rtdixon86 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Midland Hotel, Bradford.jpg
Phil,

I was wondering if you could help me. You recently deleted a file with the above name, however I have since uploaded another image on commons with the same name. There are no licencing issues with the new image, however because it has the same name it will not load up onto the English wikipedia page. I was wondering, could you possibly somehow remove the deletion tag on the defunct wikipedia page to enable it to recognise the commons image. Thanks, Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mtaylor848, in my bowser the image looks ok. Is there still a problem? PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology
I owe you an apology because as I've stated on my talk page, I thought it was the original complainant Charles that was blocking me on the Egremont page. If you re-read it, any comments I made towards you were because I thought I was referring to the original complainant. I don't know if I've posted this apology in the right place but I didn't know how to personally send you it. Anyway, sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chacufc (talk • contribs) 05:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist - ArbCom violation?
Hi Phil. Was looking through User:Lapsed Pacifist's contributions and saw this edit, which I think is in violation of the ArbCom ruling. Thought I'd give you a heads up as you were the last user to block him for such an offence. As full disclosure (this might render the infraction invalid, I don't know), myself and LP have had a fairly long (and still ongoing) dispute over Shell to Sea related articles. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know (I've let LP know on his talk too). Thanks! Fin©™ 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI on DanaUllman
As you have participated at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, this is to notify you that I've added 2 more choices. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR opened
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

some MedCab concerns
hello again PhilKnight - hope you're well and prospering. i recently requested help from MedCab, and ... well, could i ask you to have a look at the questions/concerns expressed here? also, is there somewhere i could read about the criteria/processes for becoming a MedCab mediator? thanks very much Sssoul (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC) ps: please respond here, if that's convenient - i'll keep an eye out for your reply. thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sssoul, the Mediation Cabal allows for a good deal of flexibility in how mediators handle cases, so I won't answer on MacMed's behalf. There isn't a set of criteria for becoming a mediator, however you could find Mediation Cabal/suggestions useful. PhilKnight (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks ... i'm concerned because a] the problems seem to be proliferating even as we speak, and b] it feels like an experienced editor/mediator would have a better chance of being perceived as having some authority. is there any chance that a mediator who's also an administrator could take it on? Sssoul (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll ask MacMed if he would mind if I co-mediated the case along side him. PhilKnight (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * thank you Sssoul (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Kamma (caste)
The pictures in the template were deleted. Please restore them. All the persons in the pictures are well-known and they all have Wiki articles written on them.Kumarrao (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Kumarrao, source information is required for each individual photograph. Have a look at the Image use policy. PhilKnight (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Chris-Gonzales
Not certain what your block was for specifically, but the user is continuing to be generally disruptive- edit warring on several pages, being dismissive of other editors and just generally refusing to discuss anything. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi J Milburn, I've reblocked the account. PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation on Little Richard
That would be great. Actually, something has come up and I will not be on Wikipedia for about a week (until next Sunday or Monday), so it would be great if you could handle this until then. I will be happy to co-mediate when I get back. Sorry if I am dumping this on you. Regards, MacMed talkstalk 00:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PhilKnight, if this means you're ready & willing to take this matter on, i'll go ahead and sign the agreement. but should the Rock and roll page be added to the case, since it's become part of the picture in the interim? and does the commitment not to edit the page[s] involved take effect right away, or only after all the parties agree to the mediation? Sssoul (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sssoul, yes I'm ready and willing to take this case, and I'll add the Rock and roll article to the case page. Finally, the commitment not to edit the pages should take effect straight away. PhilKnight (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for the clarity. i hope the other editor involved will also participate in the mediation process. Sssoul (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ps: i guess your name as co-mediator should be added to the 4th point under "Ground rules" here, so that it reads "Finally, your signature below also indicates your acceptance of MacMed and PhilKnight as your informal mediators."  (sorry if that seem nitpickish - i've always been a literal-minded sssoul.) Sssoul (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) it would be real helpful if you could chime in here - the other editor wants to know more about the mediation process before agreeing to it; meanwhile, the misunderstandings about what's appropriate on Wikipedia are continuing. thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

update: i've tried to make the questions about the mediation process more visible for you here - i hope that's helpful and that you could respond soon so that we can ascertain whether or not Smoovedogg is going to agree to mediation. although the abusive remarks and accusations of bad faith have stopped, as i noted above and as you can see from the edit history and in the current sections of the talk page, the misunderstandings about what's appropriate on Wikipedia are continuing.

i've been adhering to the commitment not to edit the pages in question, but i have to say it doesn't feel like that makes *very* much sense when the other editor is continuing to make problematic edits and you seem to be having trouble finding time to deal with this matter. i still strongly feel an experienced mediator/admin needs to step in, but if mediation is not on, for whatever reason, i'd be very grateful to hear what steps you recommend. thank you Sssoul (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * the problematic changes are being made, not by me, but others, some of whom are not even trying to discuss the changes first. Suggested have been made by others, limiting the quotes to about a half dozen, explaining what made Richard's impact so remarkable, etc.  This has been inserted and someone has recently jumping in and taking key information out.--Smoovedogg (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (copied from LRichard talk page) - re: mentioning The Architect and The King of RnR in the main body of the LR article. I like the suggestion Phil.  It is worth mentioning in the main body of text that he is sometimes refered to as The Architect of Rock n Roll and The King of Rock n Roll.  The Rock Hall of Fame quote did include "He claims to be the Architect of Rock n Roll and history seems to bear out his boast.  More than anyone, save, perhaps, Elvis..."  The first sentence was removed.  It does currently mention "Architect" in the inlfuence section.  It is from the transcript of Wilson's funeral where his brother Max mentioned that he remembered Wilson calling Littel Richard the Architect of Rock n Roll.  At least it appears somewhere.  I appreciate your input.--Smoovedogg (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(copied from Little Richard talkpage: "Phil, is there any way that the transcript of part of Wilson's funeral could not be used?  Also, is there any down side to informal mediation?  I feel led to trust you, despite facing a mountain of opposition to building a case for Little Richard.  He was unique in his contribution to twentieth century music.  He started a new kind of music, according to Ray Charles, James Brown (who referred to him as his "idol"), Smokey Robinson, (all supportable) and many others.  What was different about him?  Why did he do to make such an impact in so little time and why was he so influencial and groundbreaking?  Any effort to describe this is meeting with opposition, referring to peacock terms and neutrality.  There must be a way to give the man the credit he deserves without violating wiki policies.  Or is there a problem with one or more policies?  Are policies bulletproof? He was a first rock 'n' roll inspiration for Otis Redding and David Bowie (they keep being removed - there was a page error at first but was corrected, as per talk page), as well as Bob Seger and Rod Stewart. He was the primary influence on John Fogerty's vocals. Chuck Berry did his thing and had his impact - so did Bo. Little Richard did something DIFFERENT - and this needs to be described. Too many people drop in on the wiki to seek information to deprive them of the truth. To not mention that he inspired Elvis ("Your music has inspired me - you are the greatest") and mentioning how James Brown idolizes him. Those two artists alone were considered amoung the most influencial of the twentieth century. So, for Richard to have inspired them to that degree NEEDS to be mentioned. Richard wasn't the greatest person in the history of the world, but he was unique and remarkable in his contribiution. More research will be formally released to the public in the near future to solidify his place in history - so this could really get interesting. From what I have read about informal mediation, and with the sense that I get from you (that you seem fair), I am not opposed, but I don't want to walk through a door that could have a down side to it. Your input/feedback and assistance, Phil, is appreciated."--Smoovedogg (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Smoovedogg, I've replied on your talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The only problem I envision is that if I was to sign on, and you help us to achieve consensus on further changes, other editors who are not part of the process (and possibly affiliates of one or more of the parties who have signed onto the mediation) can jump in and undo the progress that we have made at any time. That occured after I had corrected some citations (page number) errors a few days ago, just following a discussion with Sssoul about it (although I am not saying that this individual was an affiliate or connected in any way to Sssoul).  Also, if mediation is generally a process through which an impartial third party helps achieve agreement between two parties, then why are there an extra two individuals signed on?  That would mean, I assume, that in order to achieve consensus, three of the four (not including the mediator) that would sign on (if I am added the 4th to sign on) would have to agree?  Can any other editors jump in and sign onto this?  2help seems like a person who truly wants "to help", and I sense fairness from us as the mediator, but I really hope that this process is truly fair and not stacked with an unbalance on my side or on the side of Sssoul.--Smoovedogg (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that a consensus formed by a mediation process can be changed by other editors, in practice the compromise version produced by mediation tends to be stable. Or in other words, if the mediation process results in a neutral, verified compromise, that tends to stick. I think mediation is manageable with a few parties, and 4 or 5 is ok. If anything, I find mediating a case with 2 parties harder, because the process grinds to a standstll if someone digs their heels in. I'd be ok with other editors joining the mediation process, provided we're still talking about single figures. Once the number of parties is more than a few, getting agreement is time consuming, and more tricky. I hope mediation can help in this instance. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for the information. I had thought to invite one or two editors into the process, but following reading information on the talk pages of all those who have presently signed on, I am willing to give it a try without bringing others in (as Sssoul has) at this point. I don't think that this will be very difficult, as a few of the 'very' notable people that Richard was key in influencing are currently listed in either the lead or the influence section, with the exception of Otis Redding, Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney, which I believe should be in there somewhere (Otis in the lead following Brown and Presley?).  There are a lot of other changes needed to the article, including explaining, as another editor put it, what made him so groundbreaking and influencial.  Anyways, I have agreed to the process and thank you, again, for answering my questions and addressing my concerns, as well as your willingness to help.--Smoovedogg (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus· ƛ · 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Frog Factor
Hi there, can you tell me why the page I started The Frog Factor has been deleted merely hours after I created it? Cheers Fearworksmedia (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Fearworksmedia, the page was a copyright violation of http://frogfactor.org. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I am one of the directors and that website was created partly by me, so can you perhaps point me in the right direction for the information to bring the page back and acknowledge the copyright belongs to the author (me)? I am new to this! Thanks again. Fearworksmedia (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Fearworksmedia, have a look at Donating copyrighted materials and in particular, the Granting us permission to copy material already online section. PhilKnight (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345
Hello PhilKnight. You were active on the AN/I discussion that resulted in an apparent I-P topic ban for this user. Dismayed to find him running roughshod over the United_Nations article, adding dozens of inappropriate edits including a 60-line table. I hate to see articles get messed up like in this way. You're an admin, we've never communicated, I am hoping maybe you could have a look and see if you think action is warranted. I have tryed to reason with this apparently indefatigable advocate editor elsewhere, and I don't relish locking horns with him again as I can't seem to get through even regarding basic policy points. I really wonder what happened to the topic ban, do you know? Thanks and sorry to bug you with this. RomaC (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi RomaC, I asked about the mystery of the missing topic ban here, but haven't got a reply. As it happens, I think a similar ban can be applied under WP:ARBPIA, so I'll ask again, and if there's no reply, I'll apply the ban. PhilKnight (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Following Georgewilliamherbert's go ahead, I've now applied the ban. PhilKnight (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

still wondering
PhilKnight, i'm still hoping to find out what's going on with the MedCab mediation request - if you're unable to proceed with that for some reason, could you please clarify that, and suggest what steps seem constructive to you? thanks Sssoul (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Sssoul, my apologies, I've been busier than I thought this week, however I'll have time during the weekend. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks - i hope this can start moving in some direction. on top of the other problems, i'm getting the impression that the other editor thinks Wikipedia policies like NPOV, NOR, V and RS are somehow negotiable or optional or "applicable only to less remarkable subjects". it seems very basic, but it might be worth clarifying what the relationship between mediation and WP policy is - whether "impartial mediator" can mean "a mediator who is prepared to ignore/override policies". Sssoul (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your patience. I agree completely that core policies aren't negotiable, and that mediation has to produce a solution which complies with policy. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would only lobby through the proper process and with the people in authority to consider same, for changing a policy if I thought it was flawed. While they exist, whether I or someone else doesn't like them or not, they would have to be followed.  I am learning about the policies as we go along and hope that agreement can be achieved within the existing parametres.--Smoovedogg (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) PhilKnight, the weekend's now over, and it seems informal mediation simply isn't available, so: would you please let me/us know what steps you consider appropriate? as you know i've already requested input from other editors on relevant noticeboards, but that doesn't seem to be making much of a dent in the problem - the abusive comments may have ceased, but the assumption still seems to be that editors who are upholding Wikipedia policies are involved in some sort of conspiracy. Sssoul (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise for not having time available yesterday. The other informal meditor, MacMed, should be back shortly, and hopefully we can start the mediation process. PhilKnight (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * i still feel the involvement of an experienced mediator is important. if no one with experience is available or willing, then it seems informal mediation is not the right route, but i don't know what is.  i'm asking your advice on that - thanks.  Sssoul (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have evaded your question. In terms of content resolution, the next stage would be formal mediation, and this would guarantee an experienced mediator. Formal mediation is carried out by the Mediation Committee, and formal mediation is requested at Requests for mediation. However, if you believe the underlying problem is user conduct, as opposed to content, then you could consider a user conduct request for comment. The final stage of content and user conduct dispute resolution is the Arbitration Committee. That said, I remain hopeful that informal mediation can be of assistance. PhilKnight (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for the reply, PhilKnight. i reckon i'd feel more optimistic about informal mediation possibly helping if it were actually happening - so if you're saying you're now ready to proceed with mediation, please do! but if you just aren't available to take this on (and if there's no other experienced mediator/adminstrator you could ask to step in) i hope you'll make that clear. i'm sure you understand that the wait has been feeling frustratingly long. thanks Sssoul (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sbakuria again
I'm sorry to bother you again, but Sbakuria is still making major changes to Alexander Mashkevitch without discussion. The information he removes is in my honest opinion reliably sourced (some refs may need improvement, but I can't look at this issue with Sbakuria's constant disruption). The notice on the Admin noticeboard got some attention, but not enough to get Sbakuria to cease his disruptive editing. What should I do now? Rtdixon86 (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Following Rich Farmbrough's short block, I've blocked for 12 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He's still at it, so I've posted another notice at the Admin's Noticeboard/Incidents Rtdixon86 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Rtdixon86, thanks for posting this on WP:ANI, I'm probably too involved, so it'd be better if another admin blocked the user. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, thankyou for your assistance.Rtdixon86 (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)