User talk:PhilKnight/Archive73

Mediation Cabal
Hello. I was looking into the possibility of jumping into the Mediation Cabal, but I'd like an opinion from someone already involved and you fit the criteria. If you don't mind, take a look and see if you think I'd do okay. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Cheers. Movementarian (Talk) 16:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Movementarian, looking at your contributions, I think you'll be ok. If you've any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the same thing: I started on this, and I don't know exactly what I'm supposed to do now, whether I weigh in with my own opinion or act as a facilitator. Could you help me? Thanks, {&#123;Sonia &#124;ping&#124;enlist}&#125; 09:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sonia, the role of a mediator is very much that of someone who facilitates the discussion, as opposed to someone who provides an opinion. I'll add the page to my watchlist, and see if I can help. PhilKnight (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB again.
Hi PhilKnight; and sorry for bothering you. I'd like to become a member of MedCab; for that, I'd have two questions: first, do you think I might be an acceptable mediator (be ruthless, please)? And, second, if you think I might be a suitable candidate, do you believe it would be possible for me to co-mediate a dispute, just to get the feel of things and make sure I don't foul up too bad? ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Salvio, looking at your contributions, I think you'll be ok. Also, co-mediating your first case is a good idea. I'll happily co-mediate a case with you if you want. PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not ashamed to admit that's the answer I was hoping for. ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're still available, I'd have thought we might give a go at this case. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! I've just notified both parties. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Private mediation.
As a member of the Mediation Committee, I wonder if you would mind giving some attention to this subject , which I posted on the policy discussion page some time ago. Please note that I am no longer involved in any mediation process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Category request
Hi. I am requesting if you could put the category Category:Lists of American television series episodes on the articles List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes and List of Sonny With a Chance episodes, since they are semi-protected. Thanks! 98.248.61.157 02:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added those categories. PhilKnight (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! 98.248.61.157 16:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.61.157 (talk)

Editor assistance
Hello PhilKnight, I noted your name in list of editors who might help other editors, and I wonder if I might ask you for some editorial assistance, concerning my work April>now on the arborsculpture page, known through a strange twist of fate as the tree shaping page. I've been working on it intensively to try to improve the page to a high level of quality. This is my first serious engagement with a single article, though I've edited many and started a few. I had my first DYK nod in March, which was pretty cool, and so I decided to get serious about writing a good article (and, as it turned out, leading wiki-negotiations) here. This pertains both to my article editing and my (too) extensive work on the talk page there. I've been proceeding carefully through very mild dispute resolution procedures that I have initiated, only as it seemed necessary; as I have begun to familiarize myself with them, and especially as I've come to understand what occurred and is still occurring at this page. Thus far, this has included extensive discussions on the talk page, some approaching hot discussions, an RfC concerning editorial conflict verging on page ownership (which was quite productive and brought in several more editors new to the page), and most recently a pre-consensus based RfM to return to the original page name, (which was closed rather abruptly after certain important consensuses had been reached in the survey and discussions concerning the move). There are several unaddressed issues following that close and I don't expect that things will settle down until some form of dispute resolution actually is applied fully and fairly. Do you have time to take on a fairly complex set of long-standing issues around this page, its history, and its editorial staff? If you don't, maybe you can point me in the right direction to get some help. I would really prefer that someone with a really clear eye and a degree in diplomacy assist me in wading the rest of the way through it in the most appropriate way. I get a little exasperated at times, but my intent is good, and that is: my first good article. At this point I'm wondering if it isn't past time to proceed to a somewhat less mild and more formal path of dispute resolution. Thanks much. Duff (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Duff, I'll try to be of assistance. Regarding the next stage, could I suggest that you have a look at the Request for Comment on user conduct? PhilKnight (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thank you for your suggestion, which confirms what other editors at the page have also come to see as one of the few appropriate courses. I am studying that process carefully, though I'd rather be editing.  I appreciate the confirmation that we are on the right track.  Duff (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Greg Caton
Hi PhilKnight,

I'm having a problem with an incipient edit war on two related articles (Greg Caton and Cansema) and would like to ask your assistance. I've posted an RfC on the talk pages of both articles that I think is self-explanatory. If you could look them over and comment, I'd appreciate it.

Also, I notice that most of the RfC requests on the summary page, going back to late May, still have no comments. What's the protocol on asking one or two other editors on the list to review and comment? Is it okay, or do we limit it to one person?

Thanks, Mark L 96.237.170.36 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
You deleted my page, and I don't know why. Please leave a message or something explaining why you thought I was "Mocking" a live human. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JHHster/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHHster (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion at Articles for deletion/Stealth clown. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You deleted one of my articles which was marked as Vandalism and Mocking a human being. This did neither. The article was "Stealth Clown" and I am upset it was taken down as it was a huge piece of information. Please unlock it. Thank you.JHHster (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See my above reply. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: FinanceQ
He is back:



I recommend his account be close and his website be added to the list of blocked websites.

Thanks. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I don't really know if I need to "join" the Mediation Cabal to mediate. Regardless of that I have already jumped into mediating with this. Please let me know what the rules of mediating are as it seems that my help has been useless at CPIM.  Mr. R00t   Talk  21:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, you don't have to join MedCab, and in fact we don't have a membership list or anything, however you're welcome to add the userbox to your userpage. Anyway, I'll add the CIPM article and case page to my watchlist. PhilKnight (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
What is the difference between a reliable and unreliable source?

Would, say, a newspaper article be unreliable, but an actual video interview of someone, or a questionnaire, depending on what you are referencing, be reliable?

Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightOfCydoniaXOX (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Reliable Sources. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the Apartheid Analogy Mediation
Phil, I have been mediating (more like monitoring) the discussion over at Israel and the apartheid analogy for some time now, and I have come to believe that the case is beyond the scope of what MedCab can do. I handled the mediation of the Prem Rawat article, but this is absolutely insane, the amount of POV and COI is egregious. Sockpuppets were commenting on the mediation page, and I see real potential for legal threats with this very high profile issue, and have reccomended that the editors pause editing the page, and request formal mediation. Could you go over there if you have some time and take a look, I would really appreciate it. Thank you, Ronk01 (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ronk01, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Elfman
You are invited to join the discussion at. Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Barelvi
Hi.

Could you please look over User talk:Chzz - I wonder, would medcab be a good place to take that discussion? I suspect it would, but I wanted to get your opinion before advising it. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 02:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Chzz, yes I think the dispute could be handled as a medcab case. PhilKnight (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks; I'll suggest that to the user. Best,  Chzz  ► 00:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 1 - (June 2010)
This newsletter is automatically delivered by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 02:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikiplayer13
I unprotected on the understanding that if they impersonate an admin, or put the tag on the page again, I will block their account immediately while we decide what to do. Just for your info. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi SG, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Question re recent edits at Robinho
Hi, you accepted a review edit from a user at the same time as I rolled it back. I am enquiring as to who was correct in that situation? The edit in question removed a well-referenced criticism of Robinho and replaced it with gushing niceties about his family and his habit of sucking his thumb every time he scores a goal. If I was wrong to rollback I will go and undo my edit and apologise to the user. --  role player 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Roleplayer, I think this was a borderline case. In essence, the user removed some sourced negative content, and added some unsourced positive content. Looking more closely, perhaps I should have undone the edit. You've left the user a note about why you rolledback the edit, so I don't think any further action is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK thanks for looking into it for me. --  role player 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-blocked IP (or sock?) and CHD article
Hello, I hope I'm not too off-base my coming to you with this.

We have an article for Congenital heart defect, which can best be described as pathetic. Unlike the vast majority of scientific and medical articles I've seen on WP, this one is all but entirely unsourced, is poorly formatted, has wretched writing and spelling, etc. I've been thinking about what I could do, even minimally, to address the problems (even if it's only tagging it appropriately and passing it on to people more knowledgable than me), and so I've looked at the last few edits, which is where you start to come in.

An IP user, 212.183.140.3, made a couple edits in May, 1, 2. The edits dumped a bunch of info (or "info") into the article, which may or may not be accurate or useful. To help me judge, I looked at the user's contributions and talk page.

These edits on CHD were the last edits they made, and there are "This account or IP address is currently blocked" banners up, but it looks like something's gone wrong somewhere. The banners apparently came from you, but they were for 48-hour blocks in April. So, now I've come to you with two, no three four points/questions:
 * 1) Is the user currently blocked? I can't really tell for sure.
 * 2) If the user was blocked for 48 hours in April, the banners on the Contribs and Talk pages should be gone now and the user must be able to edit already now. If the date's wrong, but the user really is blocked, the date ought to be fixed. Yes?
 * 3) I just noticed that the User page has a banner that looks like there's some sockpuppetry suspected. Is that why the user's blocked now (if they are)? The other banners point to disruptiveness from April.
 * 4) Do you know anything about congenital heart disease? Because I'm wondering whether to just delete this user's contributions, or try to rehabilitate them with some formatting and maybe some ref/tagging. I actually suspected some COPYVIO pasting from some other site somewhere, but I can't detect anything similar that isn't a mirror of WP itself. And I don't know anything about CHD, except that I don't want it.

Thanks for any help or clarification you can give me. I appreciate the time it took you just to read all this. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi JohnFromPinckney, thanks for your note.
 * The IP address isn't currently blocked.
 * I'll remove the old banner about the 48 hour block.
 * The suspected sock-puppeteer is blocked indefinitely.
 * I'm afraid I don't know anything about CHD either.
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil. (I see the banner's off the Talk page, but it's still on the Contribs page. I'd always assumed these things were automatically handled with your powerful tools. I guess you admins really do only get a mop. ) Now to wade in to the CHD article. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate your help / intervention with Nowaaaaay / 91.110.158.70
S/he was blocked a couple of days ago but | here we go again... Qwrk (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * G'day PhilKnight,
 * It appears to me that Nowaaaaay / 91.110.158.70 is back, even when the Sockpuppet investigation is closed and both of'm are blocked. Please check Special:Contributions/Nowaaaaay2 and the edit made on Solihull College here;.
 * Would appreciate your help. TIA,  Qwrk (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * G'day Qwrk, I've blocked the account. PhilKnight (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that lightning fast reply and intervention. Highly appreciated.  Qwrk (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Colton Harris-Moore.jpg
I'm rather surprised you consider this a borderline case. It's blatantly apparent that people can photograph him in public settings, and that there will be multiple opportunities to do so in the future. Further, there's precious little chance he will be imprisoned for life. A free license image of him can be created. It does not exist at this moment (so far as we know; Neutralhomer is really working hard on that), but it can be created. I've responded to the FfD, but I do think you should reconsider this action. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

French Phonology
i would like it to stay open. --96.23.141.69 (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, go ahead and close it.--96.23.141.69 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-06-15/Old Church Slavonic grammar
Hi, it seems that this case is not going anywhere: opened it and then vanished. In these cases what's the procedure? Should we close it or wait to see if he reappears? Thanks. -- Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Salvio, I think we should close the case. PhilKnight (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'm going to close it, then. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 09:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've just taken up this case. If you feel like it, feel free to drop by and voice your opinion: it will be valued (even if you just appear to point out my mistakes ^___^)! Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hostile Mediation Participant
I am currently mediating East Africa, and while reviewing the subject, I noticed that the status quo' of the article (not mentioning a major unrecognized succession region in a list of East African states.) Was not truly acceptable in my interpretation of existing consensus and sourcing. I noted on the talk page for the mediation that I did not want that option discussed, as I wanted to direct participant's effotrs to finding a soultion that could be acceptable to all parties. Unfortunately, One of the eidtors accused me of favoring one side, and I stated my personal point of view on the subject (That the claimant state was effectively a failed state, and probably could not enforce its constitutional rights in this matter) on the editor's talk page. (which is something I normally never do, as I try to always keep my POV away from mediation) This editor then became openly hostile, refusing to speak on reasonable terms, demanding that I step down and making rather caustic remarks when I try to settle the dispute. I have put my self up for a confidence vote, which I intend to honor, but do you have any advice? Thank you. Ronk01  talk,  01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Ronk01, looking at the responses to your confidence vote so far, and taking into account the substantial backlog of MedCab cases, I would suggest resigning as mediator from the case, and picking up a new case. I could take over the case, if that was agreeable to the parties and yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, once I got a response from all editors, I stepped down, not sure if you would need to take over, as there is another party willing, but if you went over there and talked to Middayexpreess, he might calm down. Thank you for the advice. Ronk01  talk,  21:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! We may need yet another replacement mediator, as that same participant will not accept the current one. We may also need some sort of referee, as the mediation won't progress as long as this serious lack of civility continues. Is that possible? Night w (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Night w, I'll offer my services as mediator and referee. If I'm accepted, and there's a need for a separate mediator and referee, I'll try to recruit someone. PhilKnight (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sincere thanks! Night w (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Shuki AE
Sorry to bother you, could I ask you to briefly summarise which diffs in that mess substantiate Nableezey's edit warring. Most of what I've checked he seems to be adding reliably sourced material, and not overdoing that in terms of NPOV. Also asking because Stiffle & Sandstein have both refused requests to substantiate their opinions & wondering if you can? Thanx Misarxist (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Misarxist, there was clearly a dispute about whether the Israeli settlement articles should have a mention of their legality in the lead section. From my perspective, going from article to article adding this material, and occasionally reverting to keep the content, is a as sanction worthy as removing the content. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Month
Craig Hicks (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

AIV
Hello PK, following the complaint on AIV, did you note my explanations before removing my RB rights? Also, I want to ask you this... if someone (referring to HHH) had not provided any edit summary during his removal of properly sourced material from an article, what would you have done? And if that person does it for the second time despite being warned and told not, what would you have done? Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cripes, I was posting this message here and you vice versa, can we please keep it here? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This edit was due to me clicking on the "Rollback" button (this feature is not related to TW, for which I had used the first time round reverting an "vandalism edit" that had no edit summary explaining why properly sourced content had been removed) right next to the "Undo" button, happens all the time but unfortunately so during this particular content dispute which I do admit it was my fault being clicking too fast. Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

CSI Season 11 Vandalism
Hi. I was wondering if you could revert the edit on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 11). It made a mess. Thank you! 98.248.61.157 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jason Leopold
Hi. As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know about the draft RfC I'm working on, since I've mentioned your block of the involved editor in the evidence. Please feel free to contribute (or not) as you will. Yworo (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Yworo, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Yworo (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Again?
I've been approached offline about the possibility of running for adminship again. You were one of the opposers last time. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bugs, at the moment, I'd oppose based on this comment - your understanding of what constitutes vandalism is plainly wrong. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So noted. However, I was right, in reference to the first time he did it. An IP comes along and zaps something without explanation, that's vandalism - although I probably wouldn't have used rollback in that case; I probably would have done a manual revert with an edit summary of "No explanation for deletion", as I often do in those cases. His later rollbacks, that's another story. He should have taken less drastic measures.
 * There's a lot of hand-wringing recently about the lack of new admin candidates. The "popularity contest" aspect of it probably has a lot to do with it. A significant number of those who said "oppose" last time have since been banned or indef'd. That says something about the quality of the RfA process. The question to the staff would be, "How badly do you want to fix this problem?" My assumption at this point is, "Not badly enough to do something about it." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced you fully understand what constitutes vandalism. A good faith edit by any user, whether it removes or adds content, isn't vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If an IP from out of the blue zaps some content, whether he replaces it with "Kilroy was here"; or whether he replaces it with nothing, with no explanation; either way, it's a bad faith edit. Look, I spend a lot of my time defending articles here. I know blatant vandalism when I see it. As to the specific case, the IP first zapped it without explanation, then proceeded to edit war without discussion, then whined to ANI that he was called a "vandal". You'll have to show me the good faith on that user's part, 'cause I can't see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bugs, I don't want to keep debating this, but you're completely wrong. I suggest you have another look at WP:Vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia continues to kiss up to belligerent, incompetent IP's at the expense of registered, regular contributors. And they wonder why those registered users get fed up and leave? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, based on this discussion, I'd oppose if you were to apply for adminship in the near future. PhilKnight (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to see what the priorities were, and that's why I asked. And I got my answer. You don't want someone willing to do the work, you want someone who will kiss up and lie in order to obtain adminship. In short, nothing has changed since the last time. I offer to help, and the response I get amounts to "F.U." Fine. Tell the hand-wringing editorialist at the Signpost the reason why nobody wants to run for admin anymore. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of what areas you could improve, what you said here is quite a good summary. However, I don't entirely agree those items can be characterized in the manner you've described above. PhilKnight (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I do better at all those things now. Not that it matters. I really can't figure out what you all want, but I ain't it. You'd rather have someone lie their way into adminship and create a hundred socks and then when he's caught, it's "Oh, well, whatever." Until wikipedia changes their priorities about what's important, there's no hope. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The most amusing "oppose" was from Tanthalas39, who said, "Absofreakinlutely not." And why was that? Because one time I criticized him for the way he dealt with a vandal. Yet he's gone now. Why? Because he got into a wheel-war, something I would never do. Yet somehow he was qualified to be an admin. How did he manage to get the job? Did he hide his real self and thus convince everyone he was a choir boy? How does being dishonest serve the best interests of wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion, from this list, there is still room for improvement regarding items 1-6. PhilKnight (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Invalid decline
I wonder if you've noticed yet that your Decline reason: "This is an ArbCom enforcement block which can only be overturned by a consensus of uninvolved editors. There is a discussion on WP:ANI, however there is clearly no such consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)" is wrong.

Are you planning to correct your error at any point? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi William, thanks for the above note and email. I'll strike the first sentence. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)