User talk:PhilKnight/Archive85

Deleted Page
Listen, I don't know how this talk page thing works, so if i'm doing something wrong here I apologize. Anyways, you deleted my user page and it had information that I was using and still need. I'm not saying I want it back, but if you do have the pages backed up I need information that was there. PokeMew1

check user abuse complaint
I have been trying to contact ArbCom regarding a check user abuse complaint for the last two months and have never heard a response. Could you please provide me an email address to either yourself or some living person who can handle this? My email is: wonderful.life1234@hotmail.com. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.144 (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, an email was sent to your email address a few minutes ago. PhilKnight (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks
I'm glad I could help. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you very much for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your sentiments &mdash; although, due to their similarities with those of SB Johnny, I figure I should leave a link to my post there as well, so as to avoid repetition. ;)

Thank you for the confidence you expressed in me. Take care. =)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 09:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I think your decision to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&oldid=506300447#Master.26Expert_.E2.86.92_Kurtis apply] for a change of username may be more appropriate than SB Johnny's suggestion of cloning you. :) PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just got tired of this username. I'd like to use my real-world first name. I figure, what's the harm? I highly doubt I'm setting myself up for any real danger.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 01:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Magazine
I have filed a RFC on Magazine, which you created back in 2006, because I feel it is a problematic cleanup template. Please discuss here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

TDA men's right move again
Sorry to bug you Phil but I have a concern expressed here. I'll note that TDA has also started commenting on Talk:Feminism an article I have significantly contributed too. Given that it was clearly expressed that a) KC did nothing wrong and b) that any further moves should go to Move Review and c) this looks a bit like hounding (especially in light of this). If this is an AE or ANi matter I'll go there but would like some input. I'm going to contact SirFozzie and ElenoftheRoads directly to. If I'm overreacting I'm more than happy to redact and AGF-- Cailil  talk 12:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!
Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you online?
Hi Phil are you online? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. PhilKnight (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Request for OS/RevDel emailed to you. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. PhilKnight (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, out of interest did you RevDel or oversight, just interested in which one I should have requested (or at all if you don't think it was completely worth it). Feel free to reply to the email if you'd rather (I'll keep an eye on the account). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. As it happens, I oversighted the edit, however in all honesty either would have been justifiable. PhilKnight (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

blanket ban a set of IP ranges?
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Range_blocks links to http://www.find-ip-address.org/ip-country/ which has a serious amount of IP addresses from China. Is it possible to blanket ban those ranges, i.e. how can I batch ban IP ranges so that I don't have to manually copy/paste each one of those ranges? Please respond on my user talk page as I will shortly be gone for over a week. Thanks! :) Banaticus (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Banaticus, I've never actually applied a range block, so I'm not the right person to ask. If AGK can't help you, I suggest posting on the admin noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Ian.thomson
I would have left a report at WP:ANI, but unfortunately it has recently been semiprotected - I am sorry to bother you, and please feel free to pass this onto any of your colleagues there. I am a long-term reader of Wikipedia, being particularly interested in military history, and I recently tried to show my gratitude to User:HJ Mitchell, whose work I greatly admire. I was under the impression that the more "barnstars" added the better, and thus I gave him a long list of them. My edit was reverted, and since I couldn't see anything wrong with just showing my appreciation, I reverted the revert, quite surprised. A perfectly civil message almost instantly followed, explaining the undesirable technical consequences of such an action, and that it was not the custom. However, it was coupled soon afterwards by what, as outlined at my talk page, I believed was assuming bad faith. I demanded that the user take back what he or she had said, requesting an apology. Instead of any apology, yet further bad faith ensued, and I, being quite hurt by this, wrote back yet another message. No response or any attempt at justification (of which I think there is none) were given, but instead, the talkback message on his user page, which I had given to him as a courtesy, was quite ruthlessly removed, the justification given – WP:DFTT. I find it highly offensive that a user should assume such bad faith that he effectively repeatedly accuses me of being a deliberately unconstructive "troll", or, more simply, a "vandal". For years I have been a staunch advocate of Wikipedia, even donating money to the Foundation, and to be treated with such personal attacks is profoundly insulting. I would request either your, or some other authority's intervention in this deeply upsetting matter.

Yours sincerely, --81.105.181.20 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother again Phil, but I would appreciate a response. Thanks. 81.105.181.20 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (IP editor has been blocked for trolling, he had been spamming impersonal barnstars on HJ Mitchell's userpage, increasing it 1750%). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC Committee
I just stumbled across this essay that you wrote, and I think it's a good idea. I see you say this is an essay, not a proposed policy. Is there any particular reason why you never proposed it as a policy? This would probably not be the right time with the ArbCom Election RfC about to occur and then the elections themselves, but after that, why not? I don't think the need for this has gotten any less in the year since you wrote this. I know that WP:NOT says that WP is not supposed to be an exercise in anarchy, but sometimes the RfC process sure does seem that way. Neutron (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Neutron, to be honest, I didn't progress further with this as there didn't seem to be much interest. However, after the ArbCom Election RfC closes, I think proposing it as a policy would be a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

 * To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

'''This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!'''

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
 * Background

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.


 * Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
 * Proposed changes

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Dispute resolution.
 * Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
 * Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
 * Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
 * Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
 * Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
 * Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
 * This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
 * It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
 * If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
 * The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
 * Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
 * Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
 * Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC
Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 08:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
Hi PhilKnight. When you first reviewed the arbitration request for amendment, you wrote, "I recognize there's a issue that good faith editors could move comments to a Request for Adminship talk page, and by doing so, infringe the topic ban. Similar to SirFozzie, I think we should consider modifying the remedy to prevent this issue, while still allowing Malleus to take part in the discussion."You directly addressed the question posed to you by the initiator,. Unlike a few others on the Committee, you did not answer a different question and inflame the situation.When you voted to support the ban, you wrote, "In essence, I mostly, but not entirely, agree with my colleagues above. I consider this motion to be acceptable, if a little harsh. If another motion is proposed for a lesser amount, such as 3 months, I'll support the other motion as my first choice, and make this my second."You kept this promise in your vote on the second motion.As one of the remaining six arbitrators supporting the ban, you seem to be the most open-minded to pursuing an alternative, less draconian remedy against Malleus. Because a better alternative has been proposed, would you consider withdrawing your support vote for the site ban? 12 arbitrators have commented on the request; one (who has not edited since 3 October) has not commented yet. The vote to site ban currently stands at 6–5, so there is a chance that both motions will pass and Malleus will be banned. I posted here on SilkTork's talk page a few examples of how Malleus has helped numerous editors: non-native English speakers, high school students, experienced editors.The statements that he is "a net negative" and "has never been a Wikipedian" cannot be farther from the truth. Several arbitrators have disavowed these statements, particularly the Malleus "has never been a Wikipedian" comment. Would you make a statement about that as well so your position is clear?I look forward to your measured responses.Best,Cunard (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Cunard, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'll indent my vote. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, PhilKnight, for carefully considering my request. I commend you for your fairness and impartiality. I am certain that your decision to no longer support banning Malleus will improve the encyclopedia. Regards, Cunard (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser for suspected Sock puppetry
I am Tahir Mahmood as Administrator on Urdu Wikipedia. We dont have a local CheckUser.

Can you please confirm the following as a Sock puppetry account of User:S.M.Samee (User has been blocked previously for the on English Wikipedia for the Same)


 * User:S.M.Samee
 * User:Sahlay (Suspected Sock puppetry)
 * User:Sahlay (User is on Urdu Wikipedia)

--Tahir Mahmood (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tahir, I'm sorry but I only have checkuser privileges for the English language Wikipedia.


 * There's a list of users with checkuser privileges on all projects at Checkuser.


 * Looking at that list, the first 2 names are users Dweller and FloNight who are both active on this project, so I suggest you ask either of them instead. Sorry I can't be of more help.


 * --PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Alpins method of astigmatism correction
Dear Mr. Knight,

I posted this earlier on my talk page, and the talk page of Eofren, whom I thought was the appropriate editor. You responded that I should use your talk page. Thank you for any help.


 * Text copied and pasted from previous post**

I'm repeating an earlier query (made in November 2012): I would most appreciate some information or a referral to the correct contact. I have 3 questions on an entry I worked on for the Alpins method of astigmatism correction: 1. Quite a bit of work has been done on the entry since you first accepted it. Is it possible to petition for a rating improvement? 2. Is it possible to petition for an upgrade in the importance scale (from low to medium, maybe) for the entry? 3. Is it possible to change the capitalization of the title page (from "Alpins method..." to "Alpins Method..."?

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Kcroes (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Kcroes, looking at Special:Contributions/Eofren, it would appear that Eofren hasn't edited since July. In this context, I think you should probably post on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 TheGeneralUser  (talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello PhilKnight! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :)  TheGeneralUser  (talk)  13:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays


Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies. Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol. Best, Risker (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:74.185.26.228
Hello, You might recall recently blocking this IP user: 74.185.26.228. Well, he's still at it. Currently, he's been making disruptive edits at the Mabel Simmons article, as shown here:. "Coincidentally" I suppose, his edits resemble previous edits on the page made by User:Cresix, who was admonished several times on his own talkpage and the article's talkpage for causing disruption on the article, as shown here:, here and here. After receiving several admonishments by different admins and other users, Cresix vowed to avoid editing on the article and vowed to stop causing disruption. But he has since returned several days ago and just previously to the above editor who came today, both of them making similar edits. Here's Cresix's edits:,  and. Stuck a sockpuppetry tag on both their userpages as it seems they're trying to double-team in getting their way on the article, but the recently blocked IP claims he has no relation to user: Cresix and continues to be disruptive. Could you check it out. Thank you! Also, just so as to avoid further disruption from the editor, I went ahead and sourced the above fictional character down to each and every small and minute detail on the page. Don't know how well this well do in getting the disruption to stop though. He may find some other information to forge a dispute over. Both the IP and Cresix have edited this page Talk:Gallaudet_University. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh! Cresix has since taken to abusive and threatening behavior to address the issue with regards to the suspected sockpuppetry. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I blocked the IP adress over 4 years ago for disruptive editing. Looking at the recent edits, they don't seem disruptive, so I'm not going to re-block the IP address. PhilKnight (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)