User talk:PhilKnight/Archive92

ICYMI

Possible sock but a user PhiIKnight2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), used your username possibly for impersonation. Already blocked but user is requesting an unblock. Best, ///EuroCarGT 06:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EuroCarGT, thanks for your prompt action. I've run a checkuser, and it seems to be a sock of someone that I blocked recently. PhilKnight (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello PhilKnight:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :). –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New sockpuppet investigation for user INic

I would like to request for an unblank of this investigation page because there are new evidences that user INic is still using sockppupets to support his opinion. Caramella1 (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caramella1, I've partially restored the page. PhilKnight (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Caramella1 (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore shenanigans

Hi! You declined an unblock request from CorneliaHTang. That doesn't appear to have deterred someone from editing at Art Plural Gallery. Could I ask for a block on the the address range 58.185.1.176 - 58.185.1.191, assigned to that gallery? There is a long history of COI and copyvio there. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, for now I've just blocked 58.185.1.176 for a year. If there are further problems, then obviously I can block the IP range as you suggest. PhilKnight (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing dispute regarding the Odissi article

Hello,

I have made a FP for the article Odissi. But from last some days one IP is keep on changing the FP from the article with another photograph. Please guide me how to convince the IP or help me out to do the same. You can see the history of the page Odissi with sever undo redo game

Please help me.

Bellus Delphina ^talk 05:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bellus Delphina, I've warned the IP about edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PhilKnight :) Bellus Delphina ^talk 14:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stritefocusnep

I corrected two incorrectly formatted unblock requests on this user's talk page. You have reverted one to an incorrect format, with an edit summary pointing out that only one unblock request should be extant at any time. This is obviously correct, but the two requests still exist, except that one is now wrongly formatted. I left both up as you had already answered the earlier one, albeit out of template. Am I showing my ignorance here, or did you overlook the history?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, for what's it worth I agree with Origamite's edit, however in the overall scheme of things, I guess it doesn't matter. PhilKnight (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated attack

Hello,

We had a talk about the IP who is doing vandalism in the article Odissi. As per my request you have warned the IP and the same was informed to me. Please see the same article once again, the same person with different IP doing the same kind of edits without seeing any criteria. Please do the needful to keep the article details safe with the FP.

Bellus Delphina ^talk 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much PhilKnight : Bellus Delphina ^talk 02:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bobi987 Ivanov and his sockpuppets

Hi, sorry to bother you here, but I noticed you were the admin who blocked Bobi987 Ivanov (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry. He is using a sock again, making the same edits, and just continuing to edit-war his way through articles. His new incarnation is Chakmak111 (talk · contribs). I've opened up a sockpuppet investigation, but there seems to be a significant backlog at the noticeboard. Hence, I decided to contact you directly, since you are alreadyUfamiliar with the case etc. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.--Laveol ^T 02:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laveol, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And he is back again. Radko Kovac (talk · contribs) is performing the same edits in the same style to articles in the same area, although not the exact same articles. The account was created shortly after Bobi's last block. The new user even went on to defend Bobi in his latest comment. --Laveol ^T 05:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not editing the same articles he, or MacedonianBoy was, not yet. But why shouldn't I? Radko Kovac (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userright of a blocked user?

Is there any reason to keep userrights of a blocked user? Thanks! Jim Carter 17:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, I think current practice is to not automatically remove privileges from blocked users. PhilKnight (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more communiondress nonsense

just found this IP address that is part of same nest you just killed. 115.119.247.234.... not sure if I should open a new SPI or if you could just go ahead and sock it? thanks for your great work btw! Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I've blocked the IP. PhilKnight (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squidville1

Just keeping you posted about this. Do you know -jem-? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna, looking at meta:Special:CentralAuth/-jem-, there's a Spanish admin and crat by that name. However, I don't know them. PhilKnight (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've posted at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusi%C3%B3n:-jem-#Squidville1. Should we post at squidville's talk for admins considering an unblock? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd suggest waiting for confirmation. PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Could you please give me some?

You reviewed my block, for which I thank you, and offered good advice which I didn't take (rephrase my appeal), deciding instead to just ride it out.

My block, and the far more important issues surrounding the Ayurveda page, the chilling effects on good editors etc etc are still concerning me.

Would you perhaps comment? You may not wish to, and that would be fine. Thanks -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat concerned with actions of John (talk · contribs), and think we would should perhaps consider a WP:RFC/ADMIN. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a time limit on such action? I ask because I am still uncertain that part of my reaction to all this isn't governed by the red mist of anger, and that I ought to be more rational and objective. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Waiting a week or so would give everybody time to reflect, so that's probably a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like this advice. Thanks very much. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy as well as common sense and community norms would dictate raising your concerns with me on my talk page in the first instance. --John (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Also, the WP:RFC/ADMIN page says "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." so that's a necessary stage. That said, I think leaving the whole situation for a week or so is still a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you back, if so I'd like some more advice. If not, then please ignore. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Block

Thanks so much :), Now I work in recovering the lost time. Greetings. Jaam0121 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitrabarun

I'm concerned that you made the wrong call on User talk:Mitrabarun. Apparently, what he wants is an unblock to change his username at WP:CHU. From what I can tell from May, he does not plan to make any other edits on enwiki. I think he should be allowed to change his username and then reblocked. But that's just my opinion; what was your rationale? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 01:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Origamite, thanks for letting me know. I'll rephrase my decline. PhilKnight (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Thank you for dealing with Mitrabarun. After 10 unblock requests, it's a relief to have somebody finish it up. He exhausted me multiple times, and I hadn't even been there since October 2013 like Kww. Again, thanks. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need a permission?

Yesterday, I was accused for sockpuppetry, and the opponent categorically claimed that I shouldn’t dare to edit this article about Boris Sarafov, although, naturally, he can’t prove what he says. What happens now? Do I need to ask you to allow me to discuss and do edits, and how do I do it? Radko Kovac (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Ticket 12396

Phil - a user has appealed a block that you imposed for spam/advertising. They've said they will focus on other articles and will no longer talk about their business, ect. Could you please leave comments at https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=12396 ?--v/r - T P 05:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TP, I don't have UTRS access, however I don't object to giving the user another chance. PhilKnight (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see

Hi, Phil. I was fully intending to support you in the ArbCom election, and am sorry to see you withdraw. I was just typing up a meta-question to you, too, about your apparent disinclination to answer 30 essay questions — I thought it was actually cool in a way that you didn't want to do that — though I now see it wasn't really disinclination — but I guess I won't get to post it. (That's always annoying.) All the best, and I hope your RL commitments are of the best kind. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with Bish. I hope very much that whatever takes you away from Wikipedia is good. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. My very best wishes, from the bottom of my heart. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me three - I hope you're fine and well and hope to see you run in the 2015 elecs

. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooooooooo! But hey, real life is more important than a website. NE Ent 00:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same here. You were someone who I was glad to see running again. If ever you want back on ArbCom again, you can rest assured you'll have my vote. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. PhilKnight (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil

Did you withdraw from the election due to time constraints? --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AmritasyaPutra, not really, something unexpected happened in real life, so I had to withdraw. PhilKnight (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate evidence limits

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G13 question

Hi, would User:Chris walkerntm/Tabletop Simulator this be deletable under G13? It fulfills the 6 months, but I'm unsure if the userspace draft template qualifies it for deletion. Thanks! Origamite^ⓣⓒ 13:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Origamite, yes, I think it can be deleted now. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I recently received a message from you but I do not believe I was the intended recipient. I am not signed in, but currently surfing from a movie theater in north Florida. This message was sent to this ip:

I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Cidra, Puerto Rico— because it didn’t appear constructive to me.

I just wanted to inform you that this was likely an act of vandalism from someone's phone on the AT&T network and to not think twice about it.

Have a good day! 107.72.162.78 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this was from me from my phone. Was odd receiving a message on wikipedia when I was checking something on my non-logged in phone last night. Ries42 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, PhilKnight. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mike V • Talk 22:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks so much for standing up for me. I hope to become an editor that you are proud to have helped! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]