User talk:PhilKnight/Archive5

Sex Tourism: Dispute Resolution

Addhoc, would you please take a look at the Sex Tourism discussion page when you get a chance. I added links to support the second paragraph as you suggest. But, I really think Edgarde is getting out of line. I just don't know what to do about it. Let me know what you think.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I was in an hurry and I just wanted to warn the user for once agian vandalising certain pages. Thank you for the help.--Marwatt 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make a justice, please.

The User:Marwatt is making article Marwat a personal article. He is politically and personally oppoent to the tribe of some people. He dragged the personal enimty on Wikipedia, which is too bad. I am also a political oppoent to the people A M. Khan writes about, but believe me what ever he si writing is based upon truth. As wikipedia is not a property of my father, I have no question in making it fair and clean one. I support User:A M. Khan even being a political opponent. But be known that if User:Marwatt be given a warning for personalising and politicising the Wikipedia and specially the article Marwat and relevant articles to it, whole of the problem will be solved.

Make a justice, please. Go through discussion and history you will know the culpability of User:Marwatt. He is responsible for vandalising the article, as he is keep on deleting the useful and true informations, those are mentioned with proofs.

Lakki Marwat 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup work on Sex tourism

Thank you much for your work on Sex tourism. Could you comment on your changes under Talk:Sex_tourism#Much-needed_cleanup? Your changes are all good ones, but you are entering in the middle of a dispute, and there may be complications now in reaching a resolution on the wording when said wording has become a moving target. (Hopefully there won't be complications.) Also, the re-introduction of the Sly Traveler spam link might become an issue.

Don't mistake this for my objecting your edits however. The article is much improved. — edgarde 23:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Imposter

His name was more likely a reference to the Pittsburgh Steelers, rather than me. I'm not active enough as a vandal fighter to get many imposters/attack accounts. -- Steel 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, Addhoc 10:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and Hinduism

I did not restore the encarta citation. May I know why are do you oppose the idea of mentioning one of the most credible pieces of citation in form of Encarta ?? Freedom skies 15:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to using Encarta for a source, although eventually I would prefer a scholarly reference, however there isn't any need to mention Encarata. Addhoc 15:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Attilios case

User:Panarjedde keeps on following my every edit. Take a look at this edit. If you take a look at all the articles he's reverted on me, he has no immediate history before the revert and probably no history at all before the reverts. Is this not harassment? Kingjeff 18:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check better, I have contributed to that page, and in general I have a long history of contributions to football pages.--Panarjedde 18:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he responded to my comment here shows he's following my every edit. Kingjeff 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? In this case, I was looking for other images uploaded in copyright violation, but it is not a crime to take a look to another user's history.--Panarjedde 18:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is when it's harassment like what you're doing Panarjedde. Kingjeff 18:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefull.

Dear User:Addhoc, I am hopeful, regarding the appeal for Justice made by User:Lakki Marwat. You are having good record impression and pleasant attitude. Otherwise I am hopeless to make a plea to most of the Administrators on WP, as it is hard to achieve justice by them. As you are a senior member of WP:KC, you must be kind to me, even if I am wrong. So you correct me in a lovely manner, as a human deserves to be corrected in such a way.

Here I must tell you one thing humbly, that I don't want to discuss the edits on the article Marwat. I believe the edits should be into discussion at article’s discussion page. Where no one likes to discuss but keep on approaching administrations for their help.

Anyhow, I just would like to make you know one thing, by drawing your attention towards article Marwat that is vandalise by one of the fellow who is having almost similar username to article.

If you visit the Discussion Page of article Marwat, you will find a paragraph (#19), written by User:Marwatt. In that paragraph (#19), heading and first line is written in pure Pashto Language (the headline and first-line is quoted below in bold).

( Quoted )

Kasam Pe Khduai Ka de rana We Lekal (Head Line)

Ter so pore che ze zamdai yem, Wala ka rana Akhtar Munir ya nor fazoolyat pe de article che wachai. (End of Quoting)

The meanings of these two lines is "That I vow to God, that I won't let you write". "Till I am alive, I swear upon Allah (God), you can't mention the name of Akhter Munir in this article"

Addhoc, doesn’t this means that this is a challenge and there is a personal enmity, political enmity besides this editing (vandalism)?

See the discussion page of that article, User:Marwatt is fail to defend his edit/deletes, clearly.

If you take an interest in resolving the dispute and "issue" of editing for article Marwat, I am sure the page will get a rest and updating instead of being a battleground for my fellows.

Thanking you for your personal attention,

A M. Khan 21:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Response

Dear Addhoc, as a fellow member of AMA I would like to bring this to your kind notice what User:A M. Khan has written to my above Pashto warning (our native language and to some degree accurately translated by him) to his vandalism on page Marwat. I will consider it vandalism because it carries a POV.

And I quote;

"Anyhow, your claim for being a government official, not proved so far. I wish if you really are a government official. So I would like to see, that how you can make NAB nabbing Akhter Munir of whom ""stick"" can hardly be held in your hands. I hope you understood by memorising the famous proverb of Pashto."

I am sure Addhoc that you understand the meaning of a "Stick" over here as it carries the similer meaning in all languages. Would you consider that civil. This is my question from you??. I have already filed a case for checking his sock puppets of User:Ghazni Khel, User:Lakki Marwat, 210.56.14.139, and 203.175.64.10. You must also be aware of this fact that he was banned by User: The JPS earlier as well for misbehaving.--Marwatt 14:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response to a "make-up" reponse

I affirm that I was banned User: The JPS, but I was also unbanned by him after I made clarification to him.

User: Addhoc, let me clear to you humbly, that stick means the same as you will find in the dictionary. As Akhatr Munir Khan Marwat uses 'stick to walk, after he fell from stairs, few weeks before. I am just pointing that stick. Remember, I never wanted to bring up personal issues here, as I mentioned above, but User: Marwatt made it first.

User: Addhoc as you are administartor and AMA member, I would like to make a please to kindly resolve the issue of article Marwat that has been a battle-ground for past few months due to an induvidual User: Marwatt who loves to persoanlise the article as he is having Personal enmity with those "Notable People" whom I mention always. Sorry for personal attacks, if I launched any, but let me be clear and true, so it would be easy to resolve the issue.

AMA Advocacy regarding User:DPeterson

Thanks so much. That was really a quick response and I appreciate it. I could use some guidance here. DPeterson^talk 22:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are our next steps? DPeterson^talk 00:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think our next step is the MedCab case, which appears to be restarting... Addhoc 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I should do/not do that you advise? One concen I have...along with a couple of other editors, is that Shotwell's views seem a bit extreme and so similiar to those of Sarner, a leader of the advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy and that Shotwell's views are not supported by a significant number of other editors. As one editor asked, what is our obligation regarding mediation and accomodation when there is just one voice and many others feel they have responded to his concerns/questions reasonably and see not need to make the changes he is suggesting (see those suggestions as unwarranted and a bit extreme)? DPeterson^talk 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the possibility of sockpuppetry, I would advise that we shouldn't mention this before filing a sockpuppet report and obviously we can only file that if we have sufficient evidence. Regarding mediation, I would suggest that we should use the discussion to demonstrate there is a consensus for a balanced, neutral wording and that Shotwell's views are somewhat extreme. Addhoc 11:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think that Shotwell and Sarner are "sockpuppets," I was just noting that Shotwell's views are so very similiar to that of Sarner, who is a leader of the fringe advocacy group, ACT, which has had problems with several of the pages in dispute here.

I like your idea of continuing with mediation and using the discussion to demonstrate that there is a consensus for a balanced, neutral wording and that his views are extreme. Thanks. DPeterson^talk 21:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Shotwell has made some vague proposals that I have responded to on my talk page and on a page he created: User:Shotwell/DDP and ACT. If you could take a look at my comments and then let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. If you wnat to weight in now, that would be fine too. DPeterson^talk 02:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I would suggest that it would be preferable if the discussion was on a mediation page, instead of in Shotwell's user space. Also, I would agree Shotwell's comments are somewhat vague. Addhoc 10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you suggest I do (or not do) next?DPeterson^talk 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, if Shotwell is withdrawing, is there anything left to mediate? Addhoc 22:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just saw that. Is there some way to have the mediator close the case as "resolved" with the pages staying as they are (as I and several others wanted), so that I don't have to raise this issue again, get an advocate and go through mediation? In other words have a more formal resolution that the issues are ended after extensive discussion and the result is that the pages stay as is? I'd posted on his page something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shotwell/DDP_and_ACT#Out_of_town_Tired_of_this_dispute

Not exactly, we can request the mediator closes the case, however there isn't any mechanism to approve the pages other than nominating them for good status... Addhoc 10:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So I will put a note on the mediator's case to close it and I we can close this advocacy case as well...Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it. DPeterson^talk 14:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism - Mediation.

I hope we can do it and HeBhagawan allows others to contribute but it might turn out to be day dreaming without someone in chair supporting me. Pl. see this [[1]] "Thanks for asking" and if possible keep confidential to safeguard the peace efforts.

He wants consensus to push only his language and views. My objections are clearly worded in "Thanks for asking". I can prove sock-puppetry.

Leave your comments on your talk page only, I will keep it in my watchlist.

Swadhyayee 12:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Either you accept everything, or nothing. You can't choose what you want, as you do not own any page (see WP:OWN)--Panarjedde 12:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Removal_of_comments_from_talk_pages.2Fdiscussions--Panarjedde 13:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't 'own' my user page, but that doesn't mean you have equal rights to post images for example. Equally, although I'm the advocate for the case, I don't 'own' the case page. However, I can refactor the case page and move comments to a more appropriate location. That doesn't excuse blanking vandalism. Addhoc 13:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not moving content, you are deleting my contribution, and that is vandalism.--Panarjedde 13:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, I moved the comment onto your talk page. Addhoc 13:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on that page because I wanted it there. As you admitted, you did not own AMA request page, so you can move the comment in a more appropriate place within the page, not away from the page.--Panarjedde 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you don't appear to be accusing me of vandalism, also you have reposted your comment and I've replied. Addhoc 13:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you allowed my comment to stay, but only after your behaviour was put under "investigation" (I do not find a better word for now, sorry). Furthermore, what is all of this AMA matter?--Panarjedde 13:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Could I suggest you have a look at WP:AMA... Addhoc 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for what??? I was referring to the choice of the word "investigation" as no real investigation started, but just someone noticed your strange behaviour.

If you do not want to tell me about AMA it is fine, but I do not feel it is important enough to read throug pages of explanation.--Panarjedde 13:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Taking a quick look to AMA page I read "We are mindful of due process, fundamental justice and fairness and the principle of audi alteram partem in dispute resolution." Is removing my comments from the page a way to audere alteram partem?--Panarjedde 13:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand - the judge or the jury should hear both sides, however I am neither for this case, my role is advocate. Addhoc 14:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you are allowed to be partisan. I did not understand that. Thanks.--Panarjedde 14:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devilmaycares

of the 4 people who "endorse" the RFC, 3 of them are actually involved in the dispute and have signed in the wrong area. How do I deal with that? ---J.S (t|c) 18:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you ask them to certify the RfC and provide a diff of their efforts to resolve the dispute... Addhoc 18:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are already in the RFC and the location is frankly semantics.

I'm in a bind here. I've collected all this evidence of long-term multiple article spanning POV pushing and I've have 5 different users go "wow, yeah, that's a problem" including two admins. And now I'm getting my RFC ignored and demoted on an issue of semantics? I'm trying to follow the guidelines, essays and policies here to protect wikipedia from a disruptive editor. What should I do from here? No really... I really want to know. I'm at my wits end here. ---J.S (t|c) 05:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've moved the RfC into the approved pages and I've requested Guy endorse. Could you ask the other two users who signed in the wrong area to move their signatures? Also, have you considered advocacy from the WP:AMA? Addhoc 17:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftfox

I commented on the diffs at Talk:Swiftfox . I am very unhappy at how Kilz now tries to turn this around on me, with these edits, as a distraction from the personal attacks etc I have documented on his user talk page. Widefox 19:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this defense mechanism is called psychological projection... Addhoc 19:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that commenting on someone you are involved in a mediation with to the other party. Is not a sound practice. Showing that Widefox may have broken rules is not psychological projection. What it is , is showing a pattern of behavior. Kilz 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up... yesterday User:Wizardry Dragon was helping, but I believe he made a mistake by blanking some vital things [2] from User talk:Kilz . I did make a genuine wrong edit when putting them back [3] and so I agreed with him to leave the page alone. Just so you know how I'm pulling back. Widefox 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask user Addhoc to please be aware of this section of User:Wizardry Dragon's talk page. Rather than copy this section here. Kilz 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a curious message today, as apparently the MedCab case between the two is open, and the message on my talk page that was left says I was named as a party. If this is the case, I was not informed of this. I am aware of one MedCab request that was made directed by WideFox at Kilz, but I was not named as a party. I find it curious, since the only role I have had is to warn both of them on their indiscretions. Can you please verify whether or not I am named in such a case? Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wizardry Dragon, I was also slightly curious about the message on your talk page. While obviously you are very welcome to contribute to the mediation process, you aren't named as a party. Thanks, Addhoc 22:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all against being part of the process, but I don't see what my involvement in the affair has been other than offering warnings and advice to the both of them. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on the Hinduism page

Addhoc, Thanks for monitoring the Hinduism page. The dispute does seem to be clearing up, even though it took a rather long time. Hopefully we will continue to make progress in our ability to work cooperatively and the article will benefit as a result. Also, thanks for your help in monitoring vandalism and POV edits on that page. HeBhagawan 20:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

So, what happens next? The case is open. Help me out here; I've never done this. Are you bending other editors' ears? Are we waiting for them to come nicely to the table?

Sorry to put it bluntly, but if there is to be no outcome from this process, hey, that's okay, I'll try something else. This one editor is out of control -- my opinion but not mine alone. Other editors are grumbling, too. We need to nip gangsterism in the bud. John Reid 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure where to start. I've put all the pages you've listed on my watchlist and there hasn't been any movement in the last week. In your request, you indicated that several other editors have made errors of judgement in how they handled this dispute. That's fine, but that isn't really part of the MedCab remit. If you believe you can demonstrate that an individual editor has been disruptive, you could file a RFC and if you require assistance, the AMA handle this sort of dispute. In my capacity as mediator, I usually try and resolve edit wars, however in this case all of the templates appear to be stable. If the situation was that an article was non-compliant with policy, then obviously I would attempt to mediate towards a compliant solution. In this case however, the templates don't appear to infringe WP:AGF or WP:BITE. I recognise there could be advantages to including the same graphic in all of the templates, however I agree with Keitei this could be achieved by including a catagory. Sorry this isn't much help! Addhoc 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I was wrong to submit a user conduct issue to MedCab. Sorry. Please show me how to withdraw my request. I'll pursue another remedy. John Reid ° 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll close the case. Addhoc 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC procedure

How long do I have. I would like to wait a couple days to do this. Kingjeff 23:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of time, preparing the RfC is going to take a while, so anytime in the next week... Addhoc 00:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg

I need an opinion on the licence for Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg. Our good buddy is gaming the system again and I would like an honest opinion on the topic. Kingjeff 19:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible to reopen AMA case?

Addhoc, is it possible to reopen Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Chondrite? Simonopro's recent actions and comments demonstrate that the issues central to that case have not been resolved. Thanks, Chondrite 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, thanks for letting me know. Addhoc 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reopening the case. Of immediate concern to me are Simonapro's past and continuing accusations that I have violated Wikipedia policies WP:CIV and WP:VAND. Of additional concern is Simonapro's stated intention to engage in a revert war[4], while failing to directly address concerns regarding the reliability of the source Talk:Cannabis#Greg Green. Of ongoing concern is that Simonapro often misconstrues or misrepresents references (most recently: [5],[6],[7]), and habitually engages straw men (most recently: [8]). Simonapro has not been receptive to comments by third parties regarding either content or conduct. It does not seem likely that further attempts to negotiate will be effective. Your commments and any advice about how best to resolve these issues would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Chondrite 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there is the possibility of a RFC, this would require that we could demonstrate our efforts to resolve the situation. Looking at his talk page the comments by Epte would certainly be good enough. Could I suggest the next step is that you leave Simonapro a similar message. Thanks, Addhoc 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to certain articles such as Phat pants etc

I must thankyou for bringing to my attention that a neighbour had been pirately using my wireless broadband to vandalise wikipedia. I have now encrypted my network so problems should bot persist. I THANKYOU VERY MUCH for bring this to my attention. User: 88.110.40.111

Where and how could I find out ref.(link) of closed around 7th Nov.06 mediation case filed by me : swadhyayee

Could you kindly advise me (or provide link to) where and how could I find out ref.(link) of mediation case closed by you around 7th Nov.06 mediation case filed by me : swadhyayee in the dispute with user:HeBhagawan etc. in the matter of article "Hinduism".

Thanks.

swadhyayee 13:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-09 Hinduism stored in Category: Wikipedia Medcab closed cases. Good luck with the AMA case. Addhoc 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about my talk page

This is not related to the advocacy case regarding DDP, etc. Something has happened to my talk page and I cannot access it and it does not show the list of itmes in it or allow me to edit it. What can I do to fix it? Can you get access to it and revert to a prior version that will fix this problem???DPeterson^talk 23:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Please do not leave bogus warnings on my talk page, especially when the person I was discussing with obviously had no issue with my words. "fetish" was used to describe the actions of Udit Raj not User:Blnguyen.There is/was no edit warring between myself and Blnguyen and my comment was meant to initiate good faith discussion. I see that you have chosen to take my words out of context. Don't litter talk pages with nonsense, its unbecoming.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Most of your recent redirects do not work. You must use the actual text of the article name, not the URL text and do not put anything else on the line. I fixed a few of them but you should review them all and fix the deficient ones. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help... Addhoc 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodie article

I must congratulate you for standing up to the vandalism on the Hoodie page, your contributions are valued by us new users of Wikipedia. User:Gothgirlangel1981 10 November 2006.

Panarjedde

I'm not sure how soon I can get to that thing you wanted me to right. I'm in a bitter dispute over a photo that he nominated for deletion. This was another one of his famous bad faith acts. It seems the more I see him, the less likely he'll change at all. Kingjeff 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]