User talk:PhilKnight/Archive4

This is in regard to my AMA request with which you're helping. I'm sorry to post this here, but I would guess that The Strokes is watching edits to that page, and I wanted to make sure you got this message. Basically, I now know that he has engaged in sockpuppetry (one word or two?). He admitted to editing under the IP address 68.149.136.136 (read here). There, he was also warned about removing messages on The Strokes's talk page (this was before anyone realized he was The Strokes). Recently, User:68.149.157.248 and The Strokes "outvoted" me about an issue on the Jonathan Cheechoo page (The Strokes's edit summary was "2 vs 1. I believe you're outvoted, so please stop the revert war"). User:68.149.157.248 has recently been engaging in the same activity as The Strokes, like removing legitimate messages from talk pages and leaving uncivil comments. After checking the IP Info and WHOIS for User:68.149.157.248 and User:68.149.136.136, it's obvious that those two are the same person, and therefore The Strokes, User:68.149.136.136, and User:68.149.157.248 are all three the same editor. I understand that sometimes a person may forget to log in, but it's clear that The Strokes "voted" twice, by using sockpuppetry. What can be done about this? --Muéro^(talk/c) 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, he is using his IP address as a sockpuppet. When he 'votes' using his sockpuppet, we should tag such comments as those of a suspected sock puppet. Addhoc 10:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to explain this very, very clearly, beacause you obviously didn't take the time to read my comment on the sockpuppet page. I admitted that User:68.149.157.248 and User:68.149.136.136 are me. My internet provider must have changed my IP address. I am not user:129.128.67.22. user:129.128.67.22 has not made any comments on the Ales Hemsky talk page as you lied about on the sockpuppetry page. I have made many comments on the Ales Hemsky talk page, using the username The Strokes, or my IP address. Now both you and Muero are falsifying information, and I am going to file a complaint unless you state your mistake on the sockpuppet page. Why user:129.128.67.22 from Edmonton, Alberta is making edits to a player page for Ales Hemsky of the Edmonton Oilers is anyone's guess. My guess is that as an Edmontonian, he/she follows the Oilers as do I. The Strokes 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, regarding the edits to Talk:Ales Hemsky, you appear to be mistaken [1]. Secondly, calling another Wikipedian a liar is a contravention of WP:CIVIL. Addhoc 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Chondrite is violating your request at [2]. You said Thanks, could I suggest you now leave a note on the talk page explaining that you intend to remove the tagged sentences. Then I'd suggest waiting 24 hours before removing them. Addhoc 12:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) and Yup, that sounds ok, I would comment there is nothing stopping you reintroducing information about cannabis reproduction into the cannabis article without having a strawpoll. You could just set up a new section, indicate (tag) and copy the information accross. However, I would suggest removing the totally disputed tags first. In the longer term, you could set up either a merge proposal or list for deletion.Addhoc 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC). The user has deleted the cannabis reproduction article without (1)removing dispute tags, (2)without having a strawpoll, (3)without backing up a history of the discussion on the reproduction article which contained dispute tags. There where no proposals and the user is editing the work of others which has been cited before him. I think the user is uncivil and has abused mytalk page. Since the user does not want to reach consensus then there is nothing I can do but ask that you warn the user about WP:CIV and ask him to revert the changes they made and follow your advice this time. Thanks but he is the only user disputing content that has been good for a long time. (Simonapro 19:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Well... Chondrite is being slightly more bold than I suggested. Regarding your other comments, I've replied on the Cannabis talk page. Addhoc 19:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah just wanted to contribute to what you asked on my talk page. Pleased to meet you. I am sure the article will turn out well but there is some call for it to be less specialized than what it currently is. The reproduction section is almost the size of the remainder of the article. I believe, as others believe on the cannabis article talk page, that the layman should be able to use this article as an encyclopedia and read up on references for themselves. I tend to agree. What would be your position of creating specialized pages like the reproduction page again. This fork business is not exactly a consensus or warranted given the need to apply the KISS principles :) I hope you under. Thanks again. (Simonapro 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your support, and I'm glad to be of help at the Reference Desk. All this trivia I've packed my brain with has to be good for something, right? ;-)

Atlant 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!

Atlant 14:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you closed this [3] a day before I noticed repeated imagevio. This happened to be visible in the non-red links in the list of images. (SEWilco 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'll re-open the case. Addhoc 16:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you changed a redirect page that I created from CAPS to lowercase. Does it make a difference? --BostonMA ^talk 17:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, I modified the redirect in response to Wikipedia:Help desk#Double redirects - what to do, after the modification, the user indicated the link was functioning correctly - whether my change was entirely responsible, I'm not sure. Addhoc 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I have walked into the middle of a revert war wrt the inclusion of Alberto Fujimori in List of dictators (which I only ran across in the course of RC patrol). Minimal searching seems to indicate that you mediated a previous conflict on this topic; was a conclusion reached? Including Fujimori in the list, without a solid scholarly reference, strikes me as contrary to WP:V and WP:NPoV; but YMMV. FWIW, I am unlikely to bother reverting it again if it is re-added by the same person; I will leave that to the usual suspects. Michael K. Edwards 06:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Addhoc 08:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reponse to Michael K. Edwards removal of Alberto Fujimori from the List of dictators, I believe, as do other credible scholars that Fujimori was in fact a dictator. I would be happy to provide verifiable sources to back up this claim. In the meantime, please advise regading the current status of the mediation case open to resolve the editing dispute, which unfortunately continues. I look forward to your feedback. Many thanks, User:Bdean1963 20 October, 2006

I notice that you reopened the case of Alberto Fujimori. Unfortunately, I'm not going to participate and I already made that statement clear. Bdean on the other hand is in a pov pushing struggle with other IP's, and I don't want to participate in that either. Something is clear here: Bdean is attempting to use this page for propaganda purposes since he "claims to be a Humans Rights advocate". Maybe he is planning to attach this article with some Human Rights propaganda just as the letters asking contributions for some Central African country - I don't know. Nevertheless, I rather avoid any trouble here and I don't have the time to deal with people that are not willing to read a different opinion. Please remove my name from that mediation.

Thanks. Messhermit 16:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to hear that Messhermit has withdrawn his willingness to participate in the mediation dispute regarding Alberto Fujimori. Open, transparent dialogue, I believe is a productive means for advancing knowledge. I look forward to your feedback and continued assitance. Cordially, User:Bdean1963 20 October, 2006

I'm not sure, anyway instead of continuing this edit war, could we discuss the individual changes? Addhoc 21:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked to see that some people believe that they should be treated with "royalties" just because they describe themselves as "Human Rights Advocates". Doesn't that states that they already have a political agenda?

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed on October 17, 2006 with a tally of 53/6/0. I am equally elated and humbled by my new capacity as administrator of Wikipedia, and I send my heartfelt thanks for your unflinching support. If you need me for anything, just ask me! With gratitude, 210physicq (c) 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PhilKnight! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Coredesat 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Addhoc, you might want to comment on the talk page about the changes made in order to make the justifications clear. We certainly need as many different voices on this. Thanks. Elalan 16:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

SpinyNorman is required to edit using only one account. SpinyNorman may be banned from any article he disrupts. SpinyNorman is placed on personal attack parole. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time if he makes personal attacks. SpinyNorman is placed on revert parole. He is limited to 1 revert per week on any article, excluding obvious vandalism. Should SpinyNorman continue to disrupt Wikipedia he may be banned for an appropriate period, up to a year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone else has done so, but I've noticed the amount of work you've put into the Mediation Cabal cases and appreciate it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 19:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 20:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - no problem :) Thanks for helping (the real reason for this is that on the members' list we have more with unknown status than with known status :S) Martinp23 21:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have accepted the Kidman case it might be "helpful" to know that a resolution has, at least for the time being (there is no guarantee re: the future actions of other user named in the case in regard to apparent talk page consensus) has been reached based upon a paragraph you deleted at the Cabal page. It is the one that mentions that Wiki precedent for this type of article establishes naming countries of citizenship, e.g. for Kidman "Australian-American", and not one or the other. I realize that Wiki precedent may not be policy, so this may not be valid and you can delete this also as nonsense if you so desire. I thought the mention in the Cabal case was helpful, and relevant per Kidman talk page discussion. A definitive comment in regard to this proposed precedent would be helpful, rather than deleted and ignored. Thanks. Amerindianarts 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. For the avoidance of doubt, I only intended to delete the comments about filing RfCs. Obviously, I'm very pleased you are close to reaching a compromise. Addhoc 21:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, please do not remove material from wikipedia like you did here. It is improper for you to remove another mediator's advice when it does not breach wikipedia policy. The rest of the material you removed (even if by mistake) obviously was useful to resolve the case, so I hope this incident makes you think twice about deleting things from mediation pages in the future. Markovich292 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are not the mediator for this case and your advice is absurd. Addhoc 23:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you were not the mediator at the time either. I was thinking about taking it up (which is why I responded in the mediator response section...), although I found that an RfC had not been filed. Often times an RfC will have the effect of bringing another perspective to the issue that pushes it in a good direction, or even solves the disagreement immediately. I don't see why you would call that absurd (especially when RfCs are listed in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes as "the main avenue for general disputes"). Markovich292 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took the case about 5 minutes later, so technically you are correct. However, your advice is still absurd. Given that I raised this at your RfA, you should have discussed it there. Addhoc 10:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you took the case 7 days later (my comment on Oct. 15, opening the case on Oct. 22). Because of the timing, I really don't see how that could be an honest mistake, so please explain it to me.

Anyway, my RfA closed before I could respond there. Since you mention it though, I just want to say that I think it is absurd for you to oppose an RfA because you disagree with me mentioning something that is a part of the dispute resolution page. What really gets me though is that I offered my assistance to those involved with this issue, which you seem to have paid no mind to when commenting on my RfA, then you deleted it from the mediation page. Markovich292 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted against you because your advice was absurd. If you wanted to discuss this, you should have at your RfA. What you are saying now is even more absurd. Could you stop posting on my talk page. Addhoc 22:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps vadalising the Jeans and Phat Pants Article anything we can do? SimontheRaver 12.30, 25th October 2006.

Hi, I reported them at WP:AIV and they've been blocked[4]. Addhoc 11:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for your message, regarding advocay upon MARWAT. I am replying you late, as I wason bed due to sickness. I am happy and glad, after reading your profile, that such noble person is agoing to advocate the matter.

Let me know, what to do next? Thanks A M. Khan

Hi Addhoc. Both of these warnings for incivility were put by you but I have not mentioned you so I dont see your problem.I have simply asked people to stop vandalising the LTTE article. unilaterally deleting a referenced section from an article in spite of the objections of the other users is definitely vandalism. This is not a content dispute as someone is just repeatedly deleting referenced information. Dutugemunu 23:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adhoc, Need your intervention at Space Science. Thank you Michael Hooten

I have requested for full protection of the page, to avoid a new cycle of revert wars and encourage everyone to participate in the mediation process and prevent unilateral changes done to provoke one side or the other. Your support for this would be helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard

Elalan 15:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection are usually handled at WP:RFPP. Addhoc 15:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Addhoc. "Road traffic control isn't about routing traffic around construction sites." Ummmm... Trust me, it is. I am one. Which is why I reorganised the articles in the first place. OTOH, thank you for keeping an eye on things, I sometimes need checking :( Gordon | Talk, 29 October 2006 @12:29 UTC

Yup, after writing that and missing out the word "only" I left a note on the talk page that hopefully made slightly more sense. Thanks for your comments. Addhoc 12:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing electrons have virtual collisions! Gordon | Talk, 29 October 2006 @12:34 UTC

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 RW. So, what happens now? I don't understand the comment Probably close soon...; does this mean the effort has failed already? Do I move on? Sorry if I'm stupid but I've never used this forum before. John Reid 18:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that was a mistake, thanks for noticing... Addhoc 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For dedication to improving and expanding Wikipedia. Good job! Sharkface217 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice addhoc. Pinster2001 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive comments like these are needed to actually make the article better. I'll get down to both the tasks of enclyclopedic language and the background of Hinduism once the AfD is over. Would you please remove the template? The template may be misused by User:Green23. Given his history of vandal attempts he may use it for detaching Buddhism from it's Dharmic roots and attempt original research on the article. Freedom skies 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fair enough... Addhoc 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm working on both enclyclopedic language and the background of Hinduism on my sandbox. It should be ready in less than two days. Freedom skies 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 17:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this user's attacks. Just out of curiousity; how many "final warnings" does a user get before they are blocked? -- Weirdoactor 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's got enough, I'll report him at WP:PAIN. Addhoc 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reported him yesterday at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct; and have gotten two backup reports (from admins, I think); but it hasn't moved to the next section. Thanks again for your help. -- Weirdoactor 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what is the best procedure to stop a vandal which is using different Ips from the 136.159.x.x ip range? This person has racial issues /opinions and makes changes with insults. Is there any way to give permission to certain users to edit a page in this case (Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University) to avoid this kind of vandalism? Thank you, 72.91.4.91 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7/Riveros11[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message, the IP account is Maleabroad, who is getting close to being blocked. Thanks again for letting me know... Addhoc 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to notify people you asked a checkuser about them. Don't you think?--Panarjedde 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)--Panarjedde 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]