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

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]

...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]

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]

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

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.

---

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

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

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]

Hey, thanks for helping deal with that vandal. Could you move the page back, too. It won't seem to let me. Lynch44 22:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]