To tell the truth, there are two reasons I named (165347) after Phil:

1) It is an asteroid that I discovered, free and clear - I did the observing *and* the measuring, so I’m the sole person listed in the IAU’s discovery records for this asteroid. I wanted my association with the discovery of whatever asteroid I named after Phil to be explicit and recorded forever. If you check the discovery records for Paulmyers, Rebeccawatson, and Stackpole, you will find they were discoveries of my collaborator, Dave Healy, or else co-discoveries with him. So basically, this reason has to do with the way the IAU keeps records.

2) Of the many asteroids I’ve discovered, this is the only one that has not already been named that I actually remember discovering. Dave and I have made so many discoveries at this point that we just don’t remember finding most of them - the circumstances are too similar. All discoveries are made in basically the same way - sitting at a particular computer in a particular office inspecting images that all look much the same. Most of the discoveries just blur together. But the discovery circumstances for (165347) Philplait were unusual. I actually made the discovery at the telescope, nearly in real time, in images I took for the purpose of testing the system. That made the discovery memorable, and I wanted to link my memory of making that discovery with the later knowledge I’d named that asteroid after Phil.

And that’s the story.

As for having two asteroids named after the same person, my understanding is that it is against the rules. However, Hal Povenmire has two different asteroids named after him, so some have slipped below the radar, apparently.