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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
	edit

You deleted my edit warring report and posted a comment on my talk page that it is malformed. Please elaborate.

You deleted the following edit warring report.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1316148615

Then you posted a comment on my talk page saying that the report was "malformed". Please elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC) 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't follow the instructions at the top of the edit warring board. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the definition of edit warring: three reversions without any discussion. User plasticwonder's edits fit this description. I provided links to each of the reversions, by using the "diff guide" that is linked to at the top of the edit warring board. 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC) 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listening. It wasn't edit warring. Reverting your own user talk page is allowed. PhilKnight (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you read my whole report. First, user Plasticwonder reverted my edits on the RTO page itself, without any discussion. That's a no-no. If he felt that a citation was missing, there's a Needs Citation tag for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed The purpose of this tag is precisely to avoid deleting valuable content that can be fixed through discussion. We now have that discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Return_to_office, and are just waiting for user Plasticwonder's edit warring to be blocked. Second, the policy on user talk pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages) allows deletion of content provided the user has read and is aware of the contents. Despite three reversions, user Plasticwonder has made zero contributions to the RTO article itself, and made zero comments on its talk page. Discussion pages are where disputes should be resolved. That is why we need an edit warring report on user Plasticwonder. 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC) 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking nonsense, and are close to being blocked. The revert on the RTO page was perfectly fine. Secondly, your refusal to grasp that reverting your own user talk page is allowed is getting tiresome. Please stop posting on my user talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors tried to reason with the anonymous user, but this seems to be a case of WP:CIR and/or WP:ICHY. We might as well block the user. The user claims to "have used Wikipedia long enough" (by the way – makes me wonder if the anon used to have an account, and if this might be block evasion), but still doesn't understand several fundamental rules of Wikipedia. Latest example: Changing a section title in a way that distorts what PhilKnight said. Probably legal, since it's the user's own talk page, but it just feels obnoxious. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chrisahn, I am close to blocking the IP, but will wait to see what today's edits look like. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP sock of WillKjsj

Hi! On 6 August you blocked several sockpuppets of WillKjsj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and also blocked two related IPs, 104.128.207.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 104.128.207.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It appears that the editor has returned using the IP 104.128.207.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is clear from behavioral evidence (making similar edits to the same and related articles), and from the fact that the new IP is in the same IPv4 /24 as the previous two.

I don't have much experience with SPI, and I don't know if it's possible to report an IP via SPI. Is adding a report to WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/WillKjsj the right way to handle this, or is there a better way to report it? CodeTalker (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CodeTalker, I have blocked the IP. You can report IPs to SPI, or you could try AIV. PhilKnight (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)|[reply]

Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap, now they've created a new account UWillAla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CodeTalker (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a error warning message saying I have been blocked from editing. The thing is actually I didn't need edit anything to but clicked on the link to edit by mistake and found out about the block and also about a bunch of supposed edits I tried to make. Which is weird. Cos I never really made any edits on Wikipedia. So how come there are edits from my IP address. Sorry, I am not a tech-savvy person so do not know much but have I been hacked or something like that? Can somebody look into it if someone has stolen my identity or such:-/ 2409:40F0:16A:BD31:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else was assigned your IP. You don't seem blocked now. PhilKnight (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another probable sock IP

...of User:Natsuko2007bornerf -> Special:Contributions/2402:9D80:857:82B0:34DE:2CEA:6B1A:A680 Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the /64 for a week. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you. Have a good day :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filter log containing sensitive info

97.140.83.250. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. PhilKnight (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

revdel request

Hello! 1310521040. Thank you. --tony 03:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PhilKnight (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Hello. I would like to know the reason for your revert of my (sourced) additions to the article Bloquons tout. Everything was strictly sourced by French newspapers with various political affiliations (or none at all), which analysed it. Maybe you think it shouldn't be expanded yet? I think there should be some talk about that first. I mean, preliminary analyses can already be shown, in preparation for the later historical perspective (just like what was done with the yellow vests in 2018). Regards, 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:497A:2004:4F81:D6DE (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are correct, I made a mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betelgeuse

Hey, thanks for helping deal with that vandal. Could you move the page back, too. It won't seem to let me. Lynch 44 22:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Done. PhilKnight (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LTA is back

Hello PhilKnight, sorry to bother you but I think LTA is back. No one has been reviewing the SPI file for a few days. Could you take a look? [1] Kajmer05 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!

Kajmer05 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and resubmit a sock investigation?

Greetings, I opened an SPI on User Talk:Knower of Today, whose unblock request you denied just a few hours ago. As I have studiously avoided as many WP backend administrative/bureaucratic paths as possible in my couple of decades here, I mistakenly checked the 'checkuser' button on the SPI form - but I was reporting an IP. That was declined which was fine, but I suspect the case will now moulder. But having reviewed Knower of Today's screed regarding the block, I realized that there's likely another sock: Knower of Today stated in the unblock req that they created the article that later resulted in their block for intemperate behavior - but the article was created by User:Green Dragon Pride, whose only contributions since 2020 include creating the Disciplinary actions related to comments on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, along with a single edit on the Kirk assassination article. So it seems pretty clear the actual sock is Green Dragon Pride, though that would require a fuller sock investigation.

(Apologize, lifelong disability of writing in 4000 words what most people could communicate in 400)...Why my interest in this? In the course of discussions on the talk page for the 'Disciplinary actions' article, Knower of Today posted an extraordinary rant about their personal political beliefs, showing zero interest in civility.[2] I cautioned the user regarding this,[3] which received no response, but - keeping with my loathing for formal paths, I decided to drop it. But following along with the block, and over-the-top response to the block, I see this editor as potentially a source of further headaches. So...finally, to the conclusion, which is - is there a way to withdraw the original sock investigation, and start a new one based on this new info - or should I just create a new case regardless of the existing case? Or...just let it drop? Again, apologies for my verbosity. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that "created the article" on KoT's part was their hyperbole, rather than a literal statement. -- asilvering (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly fit the modus operandi, yes. Appreciate it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have a question to ask you. What do you mean "build up a track record of constructive edits" when I'm partially blocked? FaroeFO (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FaroeFO, I mean make constructive edits to existing articles - which you are still allowed to do - and thereby demonstrate that the problems that previously occurred have been overcome. PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh alright, I get it now! Thank you. FaroeFO (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

174.92.77.42

Hello, see here. Serols (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

174.92.77.42 TPA removal

Hi :)

Could you remove 174.92.77.42 talk page access?

Thx ✦GLORPK4✦ |📡 14:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

welp looks like I forgot to read the comment above :/

✦GLORPK4✦ |📡 14:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jami Francis

I was working through archiving SPIs and came to your block of Jami Francis from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/7n3/Archive#03 September 2025. I can see how you got there from a technical overlap perspective but the editing behavior is sufficiently different to me that in the same situation I would have mentioned this as a possible earlier account rather than block. Would you be willing to unblock? Izno (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, I have unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian user

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnDavies9612&diff=prev&oldid=1313371362 93.143.172.227 (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnDavies9612&diff=prev&oldid=1313362338 93.143.172.227 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amankhan4 and Amankhan5 sock

Back on 31 July 2025, you blocked sock User:Amankhan5, an account that was created on 27 July 2025. It appears another account by similar name was created on 18 July 2025, Special:Contributions/Amankhan4. Both of these accounts edited in same area with same interest. I filed SPI on Amankhan4 but because I did not have sufficient evidence, Amankhan4 was not investigated. Now that Amankhan5 sock evidence came up, I think this helps to investigate further. RangersRus (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Hi Sir/Madam, you can see he did a manual revert. I already explained that don't use [[ ]]. See here JohnDavies9612 (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking

(sad to see such desperation) 93.143.173.65 (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment ban suggested 93.143.173.65 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Geographic_places

Respect if you follow this guideline, though "should not" means "not entirely wrong" 93.143.173.65 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked vandal editor creates another account

Greetings PhilKnight. Three months ago, you blocked Electionhubgh, an account that was dedicated to vandalism. Another account called Lordina1975 was created this week and the new editor has a very similar edit contribution style to Electionhubgh. From making fake edits, to the use of their talk page as a fake news outlet. Evidence include: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Kwesi Yema (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kwesi Yema, I used CheckUser and both accounts are on the same range, but the device information is different. I have blocked them as suspected. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well noted. Thank you. Kwesi Yema (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croissant

Well, the reason why I had added Austria its because the origin to the dish is disputed, and both countries are claiming the birthplace of the dish. Its the same situation with French fries being claimed by France and Belgium. But I am fine if you reverted my edit. Eiehel (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promo hard/soft blocks

Hi there! While going through articles nominated for speedy deletion, I noticed you recently soft-blocked Iglesia Cristiana Divina Trinidad for a promotional username. However, they had a related draft nominated for G11. In this case, a hard block may be more appropriate so they’re required to address the payment disclosure policy before being unblocked. The current block doesn't need to be updated, but I wanted to bring this to your attention in case you come across a similar situation in the future. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, and/or concerns regarding this. More than happy to hear your perspective! Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Global Block Request

Hello! You recently checked and confirmed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Visiontransformerunet, so thanks a lot for that! I was wondering if you could request a global block for the two accounts as their behavior extends outside of the English Wikipedia, which was also mentioned in the investigation. I do not know the procedure regarding global locks and blocks, which is why I am writing this in your talk page. Cheers — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EarthDude, I have now requested global locks for both accounts. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

diff exemplary, admirable, the gentlest warning one could give. I stand corrected in my temperamentfull responses. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block

StaBot was created by Luna.t5 and should be blocked. Thanks! Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MarketCrunch AI Page Deletion

The page I created was deleted. How do I go about restoring that? I believe that now that my username also reflects my association with the company, the contribution meets guidelines. Thank you for you patience. I'm learning! Shyann at MarketCrunch AI (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you the text if you don't have a copy, but I won't restore it, because it was blatantly promotional. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please send along. Would you be willing to check out an edited version when I have one? Definitely want to follow guidelines and also have an article on the site. Shyann at MarketCrunch AI (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you the email. When you have a new version that isn't promotional, just publish it as a draft. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being harrassed

Hi PhilKnight

I recently reverted an IP's edits due to them being unsourced, now he is everywhere accusing me of edit warring because I cleared my talk page, and endlessly posting on my talk page. My words will mean little to this person, can you get them to stop? Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Return_to_office&diff=prev&oldid=1316150018 Plasticwonder (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plasticwonder, I have left them a note on their user talk page. I will block if they continue. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this, PhilKnight. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I was in the middle of replying to the ip when you deleted the post @Plasticwonder. I do think it might have been better to leave their complaint up. I'm pretty confident it would have 🪃 on them. I have left a message at Talk:Return to office as the ip has started a discussion per WP:BRD. It might be good if you replied there.

@PhilKnight, I hope it was OK to jump in here as I had already replied on the article talk page before this message. Knitsey (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had that thought, but I am of the belief leaving it up would waste good administrator time. I have no need to respond on the talk page, because if something is unsourced, by policy it doesn't belong on the page. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whyiseverythingalreadyused's massive reverts

I have reported Whyiseverythingalreadyused per your advice. For your attention. Thanks. 203.145.94.15 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being both a extremely hard working admin, and for responding quickly when I was recently being harassed. Thanks a lot! Plasticwonder (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced articles November 2025 backlog drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | November 2025 Backlog Drive

There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
Remember to tag your edit summary with #NOV25, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search.
Interested in taking part? Sign up here.

You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sheet metal worker

Hello, PhilKnight. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sheet metal worker, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:47.31.240.45

You should revoke TPA at User talk:47.31.240.45. They're making PAs. 🪷 nahida 16:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. PhilKnight (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Here you go, so you don't fall asleep while fighting vandalism. Thank you for your hard work here on Wikipedia. Literally every single one of us appreciates it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking care of that vandalism to my user talk page while I was away (as well as this account that triggered the edit filter attempting to vandalize my user page). I highly appreciate it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

24.51.233.167

24.51.233.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Would you mind blocking for a little longer? Their previous 72 hour block only expired at the beginning of the month: [4]. Looking at their editing pattern, they'll probably come back to vandalize again shortly after the block expires. Thanks. ConnerTT (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ConnerTT, I have upped the block to a month. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]