User talk:PhilKnight/Archive74

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Award

I've been away from WP for a while, so many thanks for the award you gave to me back in June. :) Mattg82 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok what happened here?

Can you explain this please? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElie_plus&action=historysubmit&diff=381693431&oldid=381693147 Eli+ 15:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hit rollback by mistake, and then reverted myself. Sorry about that. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewdefence

Please see User_talk:Jewdefence#Final_warning and User_talk:HalfShadow#Jewdefence. I think a 4im is more appropriate than an auto indef, but I will not unblock. If you choose to keep the block (I thought he was just tagged, not blocked) please restore the indef tag, but I think in this case, a 4im was more appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn;t see the entire history; good call. -- Avi (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Need help

Hello. I have a dispute about Maraghar Massacre article with Marshal Bagramyan. I couldn't ask for the third opinion as another user was involved. I placed the request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts on the 16 of July. There was no answer and the request is archived now. What should be the next step in the dispute resolution. Thanks. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quantum666, I've commented on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI case

You have mail. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban of JRHammond

Regarding your question here: As I stated in my closing statement, I think a more appropriate action, considering this editor's history, would be to leave the ban in place until JRHammond agrees to specific behavioral changes. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight, you suggested on my appeal that I should be perhaps banned for one month. Please tell me, on what basis do you think such a ban is warranted? Please point to what specific things you think I said or did that were in violation of Wikipedia guidelines that would warrant such a lengthy ban, or any ban whatsoever. It seems to me you based this judgment on the comments of others, but as I have already demonstrated, there have been numerous demonstrably false claims made, including by Amatulic. So I would like to hear from you, if you are going to suggest such a ban remain for such a long period of time, what it is you think would warrant it.

I'm willing to respect and submit to your judgment, so long as you are willing to actually examine this case against me, which I maintain is wholly spurious. To take just one example, Amatulic claimed I went "shopping" for an admin to support my position on the use of the "editprotected" template. That is absolutely false, as I've already demonstrated in my appeal. I am asking for your help. Please assist in this appeal. You're an uninvolved editor, and I will respect and submit to whatever final judgment you arrive at. All I'm asking you to do in return is to examine the arguments for the ban honestly, and learn the actual facts about it, because this ban has been placed on my based upon entirely spurious pretexts, and I am confident I can demonstrate that fact to you if you are willing to compare the claims with the actual facts of the matter. JRHammond (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit is problematic. You were then advised that your approach was wrong, but went on to make this edit. Had I been watching the page, I'd have banned you for a week or so. If you still don't understand what the problem is, then I suggest you have a look at WP:TENDENTIOUS. PhilKnight (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, PhilKnight. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't understand. You said this edit was "problematic"[1]. How so? In what way is requesting editors to state their positions on proposed edits and state their objections, if any, "problematic"? That is precisely how the page on the use of the "editprotected" template states it should be used. So please explain why you find this "problematic".

Next, what are you referring to when you say I was advised my approach was wrong? Nobody ever advised me that stating my intent to use the template if there were no objections was "wrong", and I don't believe it was. I presume you are referring to Amatulic's interpretation of how the template should be used? Yet, there is nothing in the guidelines on the usage of the template that supports his interpretation,[2] and a different admin had already told me that so long as a reasonable time had passed and there were still no objections, the edit could be made![3] Then along came Amatulic, applying a different standard, which I found to be an unreasonable one. If editors are given a reasonable period of time to state objections, and no objections are made, then there is no reason not to implement a requested edit, particularly not one as completely uncontroversial as the one I proposed, which was:

After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities".

Completely uncontroversial in that it quotes directly from the actual UNEF mandate itself, instead of paraphrasing a third-party source mischaracterizing what that actual mandate was. This would be an improvement to the article, if it were implemented. I would remind you of the whole purpose and intend of Wikipedia guidelines, which is summed up by WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Next, you point me to WP:TENDENTIOUS, which defines such editing as "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out." I interpret this to mean edits made to articles, not comments on the Talk page. Yet I have not edited the Six Day War article, nor could I if I wanted to, because it is under protection. So I fail to see how it applies.

Even if I were to agree with you that this applies to comments made on the Talk page, in what way have any of my posts or suggested edits been "tendentious"? In what way were any of my posts "partisan, biased or skewed"? In what way did any of my posts "not conform to the neutral point of view"? Do you find the above suggested edit, for example, to be "tendentious"? Please explain.

Thanks for your time. Like I said, if I've done something against policy, I'm willing to accept the ban, but I need to know what it was, specifically, that I've done that was in violation of policy. I can't very well not to it again if I don't know what it was I did wrong in the first place. JRHammond (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Until now, I was arguing that an indefinite ban was going too far. However, based on the above, I'm no longer convinced. Just because you keep arguing, doesn't mean you are right. For example, repeating over and over the change was uncontroversial doesn't make it so. If other editors disagree with the change, then it isn't uncontroversial. Have a look at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. PhilKnight (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to argue that I am not correct, kindly point to any error in fact or logic in my argument. You'll find that you're unable to do so. The facts are as I've stated them, and my logic is sound. Kindly address the substance of my argument, rather than engaging in ad hominem argumentation. JRHammond (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said, if other editors disagree with a change, then it isn't uncontroversial. PhilKnight (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you are going to argue that I am not correct, kindly point to any error in fact or logic in my argument. You'll find that you're unable to do so. The facts are as I've stated them, and my logic is sound. JRHammond (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is an uncontroversial fact that "After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities". That is what I meant in saying this is an uncontroversial statement, and I was perfectly clear on that point, so please don't deliberately misconstrue my words or their meaning. JRHammond (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that other editors have disagreed with your proposed wording, it isn't uncontroversial. PhilKnight (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say my proposed edit was uncontroversial. Clearly it is, for whatever reason. My point, again, was that it is an uncontroversial fact that "After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), 'to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities'" Again, I welcome you to point to any error in fact or logic on my part that would go to demonstrate why my proposed edit is in any way inappropriate or unreasonable. JRHammond (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight, you said at my appeal: "I gather the earlier discussion was closed as it was TL;DR, so I'll try to keep this short. JRHammond's talk page conduct has been disruptive, and he has yet to accept that he needs to modify his approach. Accordingly, I consider the indefinite article + talk page ban to be within admin discretion, although it's longer than I would've applied."

Come now, and let us reason. You have not substantively addressed the basis for my appeal. Moreover, you have not substantiated your assertion that my "talk page conduct has been disruptive". If that has been the case, I would be happy to acknowledge my fault and apologize to anyone I may have offended, but it would seem incumbent upon you, since you are supporting an indefinite ban against me, to at least offer a single example. Please show me where you think I've erred, so I can be aware of whatever actions of mine you think were inappropriate and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Please do so at my appeal (not here). Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mail

You have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban violation?

[4] Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically, it doesn't violate WGFinley's ban (see RJ's talk page), which restricts RJHammond only from Six-Day War and its talk page, not from discussing it elsewhere. The spirit of the ban is another matter. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he cannot go like that [5];[6].--Mbz1 (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your objection to the comments I've posted on users' talk pages? There are no Wikipedia guidelines forbidding editors from engaging in discussion on users' talk pages for the purpose of improving articles. JRHammond (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You are topic banned, and you are using the editors talk page as the talk page of the article, besides you are pushing the editors, not improving the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I was banned from editing the Six Day War article and its talk page. Period. As for your assertion I'm "pushing", if you disagree my proposed edit would improve the article, you are welcome to state your argument as to why this would not be an improvement, such as by pointing out any error in fact or logic in my argument. You'll find that you're unable to do so. JRHammond (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with JRHammond here. WGFinley's ban, if you read the words, apply to the article and its talk page. Other editors are in control over their own talk pages, and if they feel inclined, they can request that JRHammond cease using their talk pages to discuss Six-Day War, and delete his comments. (PhilKnight, sorry for having this discussion on your page; I won't comment on this matter here again.) ~Amatulić (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree he technically hasn't violated my ban, he's very close to gaming the system though by engaging in debate over his edits on the talk pages of admins who could edit or others who could participate in discussion. Further he's moved on to the article at the center of the disruption on Six-Day War -- United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. I let him know that carrying the disagreement over there would not be welcome and got bitten of course, I expected that. I have a small glimmer of hope he can edit on that article and be productive but I don't think he's off to a good start. --WGFinley (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If PhilKnight would prefer me not to comment on his talk page, as Amatulic suggested, I would be happy to comply with any request from him that I not do so. As for the contention that I'm "gaming the system" (or "close to" it), I would point out that the whole purpose and intent of all Wikipedia policy guidelines is summarized by WP:IAR, which states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I've been commenting on talk pages for the purpose of improving the article (and I haven't broken any rules in doing so, anyways). Finally, I would observe the fact that I began participating at the UNSC 242 article prior to your ban on me.[7] JRHammond (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaking

Hi Phil, all my topic ban violation blocks (3 of them) were posted not because I was disruptive (I was not, one statement I got blocked for was found to be helpful by at least 2 admins), but simply because my personal blocking admin believed I violated my topic ban. Having said that I am not asking you to change your opinion about blocking the user. I am glad the user will not get blocked after all, as I specified at his talk page. So please threat my message as a general message about topic ban enforcement. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, I guess you're talk about the above thread. Ok, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No Phil, I was commenting about this one. Sorry, should have posted the link in the first place. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediator request

I have filed a mediation request on a policy matter concerning a contentious topic, specifically WP:UNDUE as it relates to the guideline WP:ONEWAY here. I'm almost totally ignorant of the process, but the mediation page suggests that a mediator be solicited to referee. I have asked Vassyana, but apparently he is out for some reason. Would you mind taking a look at it and consider filling that role? Or perhaps suggest someone who might? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I just now saw that you commented on the request to block one of the participants in this mediation request, Nishidani. Given my experience with this topic, it might be problematic for you to accept my request. I asked because you were not involved in any other mediation at the moment. Could you recommend someone to ask? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, unfortunately Vassyana hasn't been active on Wikipedia since earlier this year, so I've removed his name from the list of current mediators, and I've left the current MedCom chairperson, AGK, a note about this mediation .PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom Clarkson and warning

I'm sorry but could you please revert the warning you have issued on my talk page about and "unconstructive" edit I have "made" to the Tom Clarkson article? This edit was not vandlism or unconstructive, as I replaced the previous vandalised content with the correct content after a user has persisted in making wrongful and incorrect edits themselves. Waterloo Road ED (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Waterloo Road ED, I've removed the warning. PhilKnight (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the misunderstanding. I replied just prior to your removal from my talk page by mistake Waterloo Road ED (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

'Bab' image

Please do not revert my edit without checking the hisory. This guy has uploaded an obvious screencapture over a previously existing image so that the new and unlicensed image has the tags for the original image. I have the blanked the tags prior to reuploading the original image and nominating the screencapture for deletion. Dreamspy (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - I've given him a short block. PhilKnight (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Dreamspy (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Attention

I need admin attention to this SPI: [8]. Amoruso is topic banned and he is now following me around and reverting all my edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Repub of TX

Thanks for the block. I especially appreciate the fact that his user page is now clean. He was an embarrassment to me professionally.--S. Rich (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Need Help on Yoga Page

Hey Phil. You seem like a level headed person. This page needs some work, and I need some third party O in an ongoing dispute. A logical headed neutral POV is desperately needed, as well as just another outside take on this situation. Comments and mediation would be much appreciated. Please see: [9] and also the request on the POV board: [10]. Thank you.RogerThatOne72 (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Two things

Hi PhilKnight! While I feel that edit-warring while avoiding the talk page is a form of blatant vandalism and there's no problem using the rollback tool there, I agree not to use the tool in situations where it might be considered problematic.

Secondly, I would like to hear your opinion on whether you support editing in a manner that's meant to be controversial while refusing to make non-controversial contributions to articles. I have posted this question at the AE and ask you to respond there. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first statement is completely wrong - have a look at WP:VANDALISM. In regards to your second point, no, I don't support such editing practice. However, that doesn't automatically equate to making such conduct sanctionable under WP:ARBPIA. However, in all seriousness, I regard edits such as this to be little better. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said at WP:AE, I believe that such an editing practice violates WP:ARBPIA's definition of the purpose of Wikipedia. I will quote two sentences from that page:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

And:

Purpose of Wikipedia [...] 1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia.

Whether this is sanctionable is up to you and other administrators to decide, but I personally can't see any ambiguity in that Nableezy's edits violate the purpose of Wikipedia as defined in WP:ARBPIA.

As you probably expect, I also disagree with you about my edit. I am sure that you can find thousands of sources about settlements being illegal under international law, but through numerous discussions the folks editing the I–P area (including Nableezy and myself) achieved loose consensus that we don't add this information on individual settlements unless there's a reliable source stating that the particular settlement is illegal. Sources about this are much harder to find than generic statements, and I'm sure you will agree that the statement is controversial, so I see no problem in removing it unless it has a source.

As you know (judging by the fact that you gave me a barnstar over it a while ago), I am always committed to improving the articles I edit. If I don't wish to improve an article, I will not edit it. In fact, today I made some edits to improve Psagot—check them out! Sometimes I don't have time to improve articles, but take issue with editors who openly state that they refuse to improve articles. If that's the case, how is that not contradictory with the purpose of Wikipedia? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ynhockey, I don't consider your editing to be substantially better. For example, your inaccurate characterisation of The Guardian wasn't much better than the conduct you're complaining about. If you didn't know, the previous issue of the WP:SIGNPOST reported The Guardian was in the top ten news sites used by Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Id prefer that discussions about AE remain at AE, but seeing as this is taking place here I feel obliged to speak up. I added 2 sources to an article that had 0 sources when I made my edits. That is "improving the article". That I do not care about other aspects of whatever happens in these settlements does not mean I am in any way not attempting to help create a "neutral encyclopedia". You removing what you know can be sourced could be seen that way, but me adding 2 sources and material from those sources that was not in the article cannot be seen as failing to "adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". And I never agreed to what you claim is a "loose consensus" and I have no recollection of that ever being agreed to by anybody. nableezy - 23:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) PhilKnight, I didn't complain about characterization of sources. In fact, I am used to people characterizing some sources I mention as, for example, "a propagandist rag used by settlers and their supporters to question what real sources say". I would still appreciate it if you replied to my questions about the purpose of Wikipedia and elaborated your position further. I don't care as much about the outcome of the AE case, as I care about the reasons for the outcome. Each AE case creates a precedent of what conduct editors can "get away with" and what they cannot. I believe it is irresponsible to close an AE case without making it very clear why a certain decision was taken. If this is not done, a similar case might pop up tomorrow (one time there were 5 or 6 simultaneous I–P-related cases on AE, as you might remember), or alternatively, an editor might take it as a message that there are no clear guidelines and they can engage in various misconduct to "test the waters". In short: Please elaborate. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have replied - in my honest opinion, your conduct is little better. In other words, if I was block Nableezy, I would also give you a block. PhilKnight (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamas article and Wikifan12345

Wikifan12345 has been the object of a lot of administrator concern over the last couple years ([11], [12]), involving POV editing of Israel-related articles, openly expressing bias against Palestinian and Arab sources, and accusing editors who disagree with him of a lack of good faith. I believe he was topic banned from any articles related to Israel for a period of time in 2009. Based on his current conduct in the Hamas article (see [13], [14], and [15]), how can that ban be re-instituted?Haberstr (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Haberstr, sorry for the delay in replying. The answer is by filing a report on WP:AE. Looking at this links you've provided, I agree that Wikifan12345's talk page conduct has been poor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Phil, Haberstr has been canvassing similar messages to numerous other editors here, here, and now here. Basically, Haberstr has been trying to remove anything critical of Hamas or Hezbollah by insisting it is "POV." He said "Islamist" was a POV word and must be replaced with "Islamic" at Hezbollah and Hamas. I'm not the only editor who has had to deal with Haberstr problematic contributions. I am troubled as an admin you would recommend an AE to this user. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this characterization but think this specific discussion should take place on the Hamas talk page.Haberstr (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

/Fallout_3

Look at the article before you rollback my changes. the ' Development ' section is up there 5 times. --Kooperfan (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kooperfan, thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Block

Sorry - we had a conflict - I blocked the recent educational institution for a year at the same time you blocked for a month - the IP had numerous warnings and blocks on record, which is why I went for a year, but please do restore the original block if you feel it's necessar. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I agree that a year is a sensible duration. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Judaization of Jerusalem

I need help. I do not understand how to hang a tag on this talk page that will attract editors to comment on a difference of opinion.AMuseo (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Blackout Rugby: Reverting my changes

Please explain why you are reverting my edits to the Blackout Rugby page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.145.62 (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, you added a reference to the People's Front of Judea, which is a Monty Python joke. PhilKnight (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for listening and sorting that out :-)

Old 1 revert notice under WP:ARBPIA

User:Moreschi put a 1 revert note on Talk:Jewish_lobby two and a half years ago when things were very hot under WP:ARBPIA. He doesn't seem to be active the last six months. Since there haven't been any controversies for almost two years now, maybe someone who does the ARBPIA enforcement should remove it so someone doesn't get accidentally caught. (Including me if I ever get back there for some updates.) Just a thought, unless you disagree. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carol, I agree the sanction no longer seems necessary, so I've removed the restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Public Intelligence

Hey! I wanted to restart the Public Intelligence page. I edited it years ago. When I last looked, some "Businesses" had edited all useful info out of the article, so that any remaining link just lead to their pages. As a consequence, the page was (justly) deleted.

As you are mentioned as the admin, who deleted the page in 2008, I just wanted you to know I am working on a restart, which, at the moment, remains in my userspace Public Intelligence Draft. When a first version of this article is finished, I would like you to judge, if the critical mass for re-publishing is reached, to avoid edit-wars. Affected articles:

• Public Intelligence
• Public_intelligence_(disambiguation)
• Public Intelligence Draft

Just so you know what happens in your neighbourhood,

cheers, --Gego (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Phil, your support vote in my RfA rocked :) Thanks for that. Regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)