User talk:PhilKnight

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115
edit

Hello

I decided to boldly move the 1RR arbcom further remedies above the logs of warning/blocks etc, and this has promoted a discussion on my talkpage about lack of continuity between the written text and the template: the template mentions that reversions of IP edits are not counted, while the text about the additional remedies does not, saying only that vandalism reverts are exempt. Since you closed the discussion, wrote the text and made the template, I am referring the issue to you rather than wade in to second guess the issue!!! Thanks a lot. --Slp1 (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Press kit rationale

Template:Press kit rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ocean Institute

I was expanding and improving the text for the Ocean Institute. Why did you revert it to the older text? jgraves65 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraves65 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jgraves65, the text you added seemed to be a direct copy of http://www.ocean-institute.org/about/index.html, possibly in breach of copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no copyright violation. I work for the Institute, and was directed by it to use that copy. You have the Institute's permission...how do I demonstrate this to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraves65 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Phil, please advise. May I re-write? What can I do?

There's some information at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others. Anyway, rewriting the text would be ok, however you would need to take care to avoid a promotional tone. PhilKnight (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One more question...how do I post photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraves65 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images. PhilKnight (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm re-writing now and I hope to have my material up shortly. I've been associated with the Institute for 7 years and I know it well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraves65 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Phil, I've completed my re-write; does it work for you? I have many photos--my own--I can paste if the text is OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraves65 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, from my perspective, the previous version was written in a neutral encyclopedic manner, and your version is promotional. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can make some changes. Can you give me some hints about what I ought to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraves65 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest keeping the earlier content, and adding to it, rather than starting again. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, how does the revised text work for you? And, can I add photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraves65 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Phil, thanks for the editing help. One question, though. Shouldn't the tall ships photo be in the tall ships section? The tall ship photo doesn't have anything to do with "Other Facilities".

No problem, and yes it should. Thanks for the prompt. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mzb1

Phil, could you restore this, please? User talk pages aren't supposed to be deleted, except in exceptional circumstances, and Mzb1 has been repeatedly trying to have this deleted for a long time, for no clear reason. Regarding policy, the applicable pages are {{db-u1}} and Wikipedia:RTV#Deletion_of_user_talk_pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi SV, I thought talk archives were considered subpages, but anyway, I've restored. PhilKnight (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil. The page is still showing 225 deleted edits, unless I'm having a cache problem, [1] though I don't recall seeing them before. Would you mind undeleting them too? I don't want to do it in case it looks as though I'm wheel warring. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the logs I think I restored the same number of revisions as before my involvement. PhilKnight (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll try to restore the rest. I don't know whether I missed them first time, though that seems unlikely. I did wonder why it said I had restored nine when there seemed to be so much more in the history. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

By email, (functionaries mailing list) Xeno has suggested merging the archive page into the user talk page. Would that be ok? PhilKnight (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can't see any problem with that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's only the the content that was originally from the user talk page prior to the movepage archiving in 29 July 2007 that ought be merged. There's no requirement for a user to maintain archives, so I don't really see a barrier to deleting the page per U1. In this case, there was movepage archiving that does preclude it though (which is why I suggested the merging). –xeno^talk 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste archives can be deleted if the user wants, because they're user-created. It's the edit history of the talk page that shouldn't be deleted, because that history was created by other users, and that would include archives created by page moves (though individual problematic posts can of course be deleted). But the moved archives can be re-merged if the user wants that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that over 844 edits of Mzb1's talk page were deleted a year ago by Avraham, [2] which is what I noticed today and restored. I looked through them first in case there was something problematic, but I coudn't see anything. It seemed to be only because Mzb1 said she was leaving, but this has become something of a pattern, and it isn't grounds for talk page deletion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• You should not have restored neither my talk page nor my archive without asking first, if not me, then at least Avraham. You have done wrong!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, your talk page history shouldn't have been speedy deleted. It's acceptable to delete particular posts that are problematic because of privacy, harassment and similar. It's also acceptable to move the history to archives, as you did with one archive, and you're under no obligation to list those archives. That is, you don't have to make the history easy to find. But making it disappear entirely is not allowed, because it contains mostly posts by other users, not posts by you. So if you want the history or any substantial part of it to be deleted entirely, with an assumption that the deletion will be permanent, you have to take it to MfD. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)::::Hi Phil, according to this it entirely depends on me , to archive or to not archive my own talk page. When you deleted my archive you acted within the policy. Archive is not a talk page. I could request archive's history to be deleted at any time I want to, even, if I am an active user. Please see also here. It clearly states: "archives created by page move are generally not deleted" (highlighted by me). My archive was not created by page move. May I please ask you to delete it? May I please ask you to act within wikipedia policies versus allowing the trolls to come up with their own? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some revisions 29 July 2007 and prior that should be split, merged back to user talk:Mbz1, then the archive can be deleted. Is that an acceptable compromise? –xeno^talk 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the acceptable compromise would have been restoring everything (my talk page and my archive) as it were before SV for unknown to me reason and without knowing the history decided to restore it. It should not have been done that way!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The main talk page is now saying it can't be deleted because it has over 5,000 revisions. [3] But it only has 2,700 revisions. [4] And that message wasn't there half an hour ago when I last looked. Does anyone know how it's generated? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the God himself prevents you from messing with my talk page any more :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Sock

Hey,

I'm messaging a few admins to see if I can get someone to look at this persistent sock issue. Think you could help? NickCT (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, while I agree that it would appear Breein1007 is editing from IP addresses, I'm not the right person to handle this. For example, last June, he placed this note on my talk page. In this context, I'd prefer if someone else handled the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I want to have your comment about this: [5], that when it was pointed out that the previous SPI against the IP was shown to be the exact same IP as breeins, the admins instead of blocking Breein and his sock removed the revision and closed the SPI (doing nothing) and a couple days later breeins sock was blocked for 1rr, and that he is counting this behavior still today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi SD, while I agree that it would appear Breein1007 is editing from IP addresses, I'm not the right person to handle this. For example, last June, he placed this note on my talk page. In this context, I'd prefer if someone else handled the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing Fair Use specs

Thanks for providing a Fair Use explanation and rationale for File:Hightimes-first-issue-1974.jpg back in December! I was the original uploader (in 2007), but I don't login very often, so I didn't get the (30 November) speedy-deletion warning until today—by which point the file would've been long gone. I'm mystified by those who'd rather invoke WP:CSD instead of trying to fix such an obviously valid fair-use case... Hence why I'm thankful for contributors like you, who care enough to go take the time to preserve content that clearly adds value to the encyclopedia. — Hiplibrarianship (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and glad to be of assistance. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

208.122.71.124

This IP, which you just blocked, is registered to Dawson-Bryant Local Schools. With this information, I think a school block might work better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer, I've modified the block reason to {{schoolblock}}. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! :) I will keep an eye (if you can) on that IP in 48 hours to make sure no other vandalism pops up. If it does, you can call the school system and let them know that there is vandalism from that IP. They can literally track it down to the very school and classroom (then computer, and then ultimately student) it came from. Kinda neat. Got a couple kids suspended with that method one time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1RR I-P Template

Any chance you could put it on this article which has been flaming out on the boards again, with obviously relevant issues. It will cause too much controversy if I do it. Or recommend who can do it for me. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carol, the article mentions the Israel-Palestine conflict several times, so I think it's plausible to consider it related. Accordingly, I've added the {{ARBPIA}} template to the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed the article page doesn't have that big scary red stop sign like, say Gulf War has when you open to edit it. I didn't see any relevant html to put in there from template page. How does it work? CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've created the edit notice, and added {{Editnotice IP 1RR}} to a 'see also' section of the other template. PhilKnight (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I need the reminder myself!! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Coţofeneşti

Hi! I was about to create a redirect from Coţofeneşti to Vărbilău when I noticed that you deleted it. Coţofeneşti is the site of an important archaeological descovery (see the content I added to Vărbilău). Do you mind if I add the redirect, as I plan to mention Coţofeneşti in other articles related to the find? Also, is there a way to see the previous content on that page? On your comment it says there was nothing meaningful but I wondering if there were any useful links. I couldn't find a way to see the previous version of the page. Thanks a lot and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Codrin, I've created the redirect, and restored the older revisions. However, I doubt there's any useful content. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, there was some weird content there. No idea who Ion Stefanache was and couldn't find anything decent around that name on the internet. So nothing to salvage indeed. Thanks a lot! --Codrin.B (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard nomination

Your comment at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Anthony Appleyard seemed to be a support vote and, as an emeritus member of the Committee, you retain the right to vote on nominations, so I've moved it to the "voting" section. If this isn't what you intended, please revert me. Regards, AGK [•] 21:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi AGK, thanks for explaining and moving my vote. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What else needs to be done to Photos ?

Please Help1 --Craiglduncan (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Craig, if you're willing to release them under a free license, you could tag them with {{Cc-by-3.0}}. PhilKnight (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryoki Inoue

You tagged Ryoki Inoue as having copyvio problems, and indeed it does. However, the problems were introduced by User:Gwinva, not the original editor of the article User:Stormwatch--SPhilbrickT 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Very Old Barton

Hi Phil. Thank You for restoring several of the photos of Bourbon bottles. There is one Brand you missed, if you wouldn't mind, please restore the one for Very Old Barton. We appreciate your time and effort, thanks again. --Craiglduncan (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel mediation

With thanks for your prior help, I would appreciate your comment (at the MedCab page) on my suggestion at User talk:Lord Roem that my case may be ready. Any info about Lord Roem's experience would also be very appropriate. JJB 20:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance list

A problem has been identified at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Steve Crenshaw

Hi, I just wanted to give you a heads up that I removed the prod from Steve Crenshaw. Technically it wasn't eligible for prod because it was previously undeleted. More importantly, a reference was added to the article after you prodded it. I updated the tag and added a notability tag to it because the added ref is little more than a trivial mention so feel free to send it to AfD. J04n(talk page) 17:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicky Morgan.

Just to say thanks for your work on Nicky Morgan (politician). JRPG (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

You wrote the closing comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspected jihadists from the Maldives, asserting it was a speedy delete. The deletion log says User:Alison did the actual deletion.

My understanding of our deletion policies is that deletion is supposed to be based on whether the topic merits coverage, not on concerns over the current state of the article. In my opinion the topic of jihadism in the Maldives or terrorism in the Maldives or Suspected jihadists from the Maldives is worthy of coverage in the wikipedia. As such I do not believe this was a candidate for speedy deletion.

I had been working on assembling additional references. The {{afd}} had several days to run. I was counting on those several days to collate those additional references.

Could you please clarify as to whether it is your opinion that the topic of Jihadism in the Maldives or Terrorism in the Maldives or Suspected jihadists from the Maldives itself is not worth covering, without regard to how well referenced the topic is? If that is your opinion could you point me to the section or section(s) of a wikipedia policy on which you based that opinion?

A partial list of references follow. I continue to think this topic is worthy of coverage, and can be properly referenced. Would you consider restoring the article, relisting the {{afd}}, and allowing me to let contributors weigh in on it, after I have added these additional references, and trimmed the redlinks that concerned some respondents? Geo Swan (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Geo Swan, there was a request made to the OTRS oversight queue in regard to your article, which Alison and I responded to. Alison deleted the article and left a note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspected jihadists from the Maldives. I closed the discussion after the article was deleted. From my perspective, in most cases, Wikipedia should not include information about living persons suspected of criminal activity. In this context, I agree with comments made by Borock in the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked you a question, above, that I consider important -- important not just for this {{afd}}, but important for similar articles. I would really appreciate it if you took the time to answer this question:

Could you please clarify as to whether it is your opinion that the topic of Jihadism in the Maldives or Terrorism in the Maldives or Suspected jihadists from the Maldives itself is not worth covering, without regard to how well referenced the topic is? If that is your opinion could you point me to the section or section(s) of a wikipedia policy on which you based that opinion?

I know some contributors think a red-link, to a name, can be a violation of BLP. It is an assertion that I have never seen explained, and one I don't agree with. When a name is very common, is held by thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of individuals, I do not see how a redlink to that name can be held to be slandering any of those thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of individuals. Maybe if someone who holds this position made an attempt to explain their reasoning I would be convinced. But I honestly do not remember anyone trying to explain how a redlink can violate BLP. I comply with the wikipedia's policies, guidelines and established conventions. If there had been a real discussion, in an appropriate venue, where there was a real exchange of views, and a genuine consensus had been established that redlinks to very common names could be seen as violations of BLP, I would comply with that consensus, even if the arguments for it didn't personally convince me.

And if the policy did explicitly back up that assertion, or if a genuine consensus had been established after a real discussion, and the redlinked names were excised the topic of this article would remain a valid topic, and could be covered without using individuals' names.

When you reviewed the article I trust you realized that some of these individuals were killed by suicide bombs? When dead individuals were killed by a suicide bomb, and were suspected of being the bomber, their reputation would not be protected by BLP, would they, since that policy protects living people. Geo Swan (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already said that I agree with Borock's comment in the AfD. In this context, it should be obvious that an article such as Suspected jihadists from the Maldives would be unacceptable. PhilKnight (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Arabcartoon.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Arabcartoon.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Raphael1 10:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raphael1, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I did reply to the "uninvolved" Fur.Perf..--Lsorin (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just something to think about

Hi Phil, some time ago my Gmail account was hacked by somebody, who edited wikipedia using proxy. Whoever hacked my gmail account used it for a while sending messages to people from my contact list pretending the messages were sent by me. Eventually my gmail account generated an alert report, in which there was their IP address. I checked, if this IP edited wikipedia, and it was. After that I contacted Avi, and he blocked that proxy. Here are global contributions of this IP. Please note IP edited Arabic wikipedia, and I am very sure, whoever used this proxy has connection to I/P conflict editing even, if it is not seen from his contributions as a proxy. But this was not the end of the story. I'd like to let you know that tonight I got an intimidating email from somebody, who has email address parsivalarb@yahoo.com and is impersonating you. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, sorry to hear that. PhilKnight (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1. Computer hacking, also sometimes referred to as computer trespass, is a serious offense that, depending on the severity of the trespass, can result in severe criminal penalties. I strongly urge you to contact your local law enforcement authorities so they can follow-up on the matter. In addition, I have a law enforcement background so if you wish to contact me, feel free to do so, (I have enabled my email). It's obviously someone who edited on Wikipedia and probably someone you had words with. I would start with those who have had interaction bans with you but I would certainly not limit it to this group.

Phil, your reaction to this disturbing event is very mild I must say. If someone impersonated me, I would be irate. But that's just me. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but it isn't a particularly convincing attempt to impersonate me, for example the email address is nothing like mine. However, if you forward me the email, I'll report it as abuse to Yahoo. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have forwarded this email to you, except I deleted it already. Before I deleted it I got IP information from this email. His IP is: 98.138.88.129. As you see it differs from the one that hacked my Gmail account almost 2 months ago. Maybe I am missing something, but it does not look like this IP is a proxy. Nobody from this exact IP has edited wikipedia, yet SPI might be in order. I have no idea how SPI works, but, if there's a way to see who this IP could belong to, it would have been really helpful. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Phil, I'd like to let you know that I filed a complain with Internet Crime Complaint Center about both the hacker and the impostor, who I assume is the same wikipedia user, and I have a rather good idea who the user is. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Phil. Hmmm, is 195.229.235.42 a related open proxy as well? After this post to my talk page by Mbz1, this user edited my talk page so it resembled the talk page as it was when 67.202.67.86 edited it. Quite bizarre! Graham87 08:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This actually is understandable. I emailed to the email address listed at Graham87's talk page, and got a response. Then the owner of the email removed his email address from the talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aha, that makes more sense. Graham87 03:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hacking can indeed be a serious crime, however unfortunately IC3 (and many other law enforcement reporting points) very rarely lead to any action being taken regarding incidents of this nature. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sol Goldstone

Hi Phil, I'd like to inform you, please that User:Sol Goldstone has continued to threaten me with the hacked emails I told you about. More than that, User:Sol Goldstone admits they are proxy editing for a banned user. I suggested User:Sol Goldstone to contact you with all feature questions about hacking of my email accounts they could have. In addition to the email I sent you a few days ago I am ready to respond any other questions you, or other members of Arbcom for that matter, might have either via email or at your/my talk page, it is of course, if you are willing to look at the "evidences" presented by the the user, who is proxy editing for the hacker, and for the banned user. I'd only like to make one simple request.May I please ask you do not give my email address to User:Sol Goldstone? I mean, if you'd like email them and me, please email us separately because I am afraid I have no reason to trust that user. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that some of the statements made by Mbz1 seem to be using comments about legal action to put pressure on another editor.

Jiujitsuguy: (to Mbz1 but here on this talk page) "Computer hacking, also sometimes referred to as computer trespass, is a serious offense that, depending on the severity of the trespass, can result in severe criminal penalties. I strongly urge you to contact your local law enforcement authorities so they can follow-up on the matter." [6]

Mbz1 again: (to PhilKnight) "I would have forwarded this email to you, except I deleted it already."[7] Not sure why she would delete evidence of something she is making a criminal complaint about.

"I'd like to let you know that I filed a complain with Internet Crime Complaint Center about both the hacker and the impostor, who I assume is the same wikipedia user, and I have a rather good idea who the user is." [8]

(to Sol) "If somebody contacted you anonymously on that matter, and you are to proceed with this IMO it would make you a co-conspirator of the crime" [9]

"Also because I reported the crime, you are obligated to reveal any information about the hacker that you poses" [10]

"I meant that this matter is not about my name that needs to be publicly cleared, it is about your name that needs to stay good." [11]

"BTW your latest post's style reminded me very much the style of the hacker in the email I got from them about a week ago." ... "If you understand this, and continue to pursue the matter, it makes you a co-conspirator of a felony." [12]

"Sol, right now you are in a deep [....] up to your shoulders. If you are to proceed with it...you know..." ... "Please have a nice day, and please be safe, I mean, if you could, avoid drowning in that [....] you got yourself into." [13]

Epeefleche sensibly suggests to Mbz1 that she should close and delete the thread here.

Ignoring that, Mbz1 goes ahead to inform Sol that she has added his Wikipedia username to the criminal report here.

Then the above paragraph.

WP:NLT specifically talks about civil litigation, not criminal investigations. But I feel the above taken together, might breach the spirit of that policy. Specifically, Mbz1 appears to be using the imagined seriousness of a report to the Internet Crime Complaint Center, as a threat to discourage certain actions on Sol's part. I certainly think that Mbz1 is right to report to authorities if a crime has occured, but on-wiki is not the right place to make declarations about that and about an alleged impact on another editor. Sol has said he is not intimidated by threats, but there is every possibility that comments like the above could have a chilling effect on editors other than Sol.

I am also concerned about a precedent being set here. I imagine Mbz1 is well able to distinguish what is and what is not a crime, but there are many editors in controversial topic areas who might not understand that so well, or might not care. It's very easy to file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center, you don't even need to be a U.S. resident. You just need an internet connection and a belief that you have a valid complaint. It is not going to help anything if we end up seeing the endless stream of reports and counter-reports at AE and 3RR enhanced by details of how the parties are filing criminal complaints and counter-complaints against each other. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Phil, user:Demiurge1000 is a troll, who has been wikihounding me for quite some time (could present many proves by request), but something they said needs a clarification. I mean the email I got from the hacker of somebody, who is proxy editing for the hacker. I did delete this email. There was an attachment in it, and I would not allow my computer to get viruses once again. (I usually do not trust attachments received from the hackers, and/or their proxies) ,but I did keep the text of this email. Here is the time-line of the latest events together with the text of email I told you about. May I please ask you to notice that it was sent to two of my email address, none of which is listed on wikipedia. I also changed the names mentioned in email to "xxx" and "yyy" in order to protect innocent persons.

A time-line of the latest events:

• 23:51, 9 February 2011 Sol Goldstone contacts Nableezy on the matter of the hacker

• 17:46, 11 February 2011 Sol Goldstone contacts Sean.hoyland on the matter of the hacker

• Feb 12, 2011 at 6:48 PM I was sent the following email:

From: Phil K <parsivalarb@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:48 PM Subject: Bad wiki news, mbz1, read carefully To: xxxxx@gmail.com Cc: xxxxx@yahoo.com

mbz1,

I'm sorry to contact you outside of the official channels but doing otherwise could put my position in jeopardy. I'm not sure if anyone else from Arbcom has contacted you but the situation is this: your off-wiki email ring was discovered a while ago and, in exchange for leniency, two of the group members, xxx and yyy, have handed over copies of various emails (like the one attached, there are many more). They've claimed that you are the central figure behind the group, organizing DYK vote stacking and coordinating with banned users, and that they were never involved in any of the sock/meat puppeteering. The evidence they've given is damning and ,due to the severity of the lobbying, Arbcom is leaning toward blocking you and possibly a Meta-wiki block from all WP projects. Others will be blocked with xxx and yyy pardoned. I don't want to have that happen, for a few reasons.

I feel Arbcom is being manipulated by two editors, one with a history of canvassing, into making you take the blame while they get a free pass. You are a passionate advocate for your beliefs, an admirable quality, and a positive contributor to the Project, not qualities I'd associate with a canvassing ringleader. I could be wrong but I'd rather give you a chance to prove it than never hear the other side of the story. The problem is that all of the evidence points to you as the leader, other editors following your directions. What I'd need to help your case is evidence that you are not the director of this project, or at least not the only person directing the meatpuppetry. If xxx and yyy are lying to Arbcom about their role in this, if they did take part in the lobbying and weren't passive observers, then they would be blocked and I could negotiate leniency for you. You may also be able to prove that others aren't deserving of blocks but that is far more difficult. If I've misread your role in this and you are what the evidence is showing, I apologize for wasting both of our time.

Arbcom moves slowly but this currently an open-and-shut case and will be finished in a few days unless there's reason to reconsider. I know contacting you like this is highly irregular but I believe in the seriousness of our duties and have no wish to punish associated figures while the chief wrongdoers go free.

If you've any material you'd like me to inspect, either before or after your block, I will do what I can on your behalf. This is the only chance I can offer you. Best of luck.

(end of email)

• 17:46, 19 February 2011 Sol Goldstone, loosing hope that I would ever get back to "PhilKnight" with more "evidences" against other editors, started harassing me at my talk page

Phil, all this thing with hacking my email accounts, impersonating you, proxy-editing for the hacker and for a banned user, it really stinks. As you know there is not a single word of the truth in the text of email I provided above. I have absolutely nothing to hide, and I believe it is time to close this matter right here and right now, and to say a firm "no" to the hacker, impersonator, and the user, who's proxy editing for them. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, just to clarify, there is no way I'm going to consider evidence obtained by hacking. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was sure of that! Of course now user:Sol Goldstone claims that the hacker "claims these are messages they received from you and their replies.".This claim is a lie, a whole lie and nothing but the lie.

One more thing. I am not sure that user:Sol Goldstone and the impostor, who sent me the email, the text of which I provided above, is the same person (a linguist I showed the samples of the writings to is positive those were written by the same person), but, Phil, with trying very hard to assume a good faith, I have a very difficult time to believe that, if even user:Sol Goldstone did not write the email themselves, they did not know about it either. The time-line of events I provided above proves that user:Sol Goldstone was at least aware of the email. In any case with user:Sol Goldstone actions at my talk page, self-admitted proxy-editing for a banned user, refusing to provide information about the hacker they are proxy-editing for, and so on, took the editing in I/P conflict area to a new low, and I believe user:Sol Goldstone deserves to be sanctioned for their conduct in this matter. I would also appreciate any help I could get in discovering the identity of the hacker. user:Sol Goldstone admitted they know the user name of the banned user, who contacted them. This information could and should be used to catch the hacker. Listen, I am sorry to use your talk page like this. It happened because the email I got was from "you". Thanks for you patience.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)