Misplaced Pages

User talk:PhilKnight: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:39, 23 November 2024 edit2a02:8388:8c45:bd00:294c:15bc:37d7:945d (talk) →Croissant: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:12, 23 January 2025 edit undoPhilKnight (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators126,718 edits →Help with blocking IP-hopping climate vandal?: reply 
(151 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:




== Blocking Theposterizer == == You missed ==


For one edit? ] (]) (]) 21:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC) … the master of {{noping|Abu4real1995}}: {{noping|Joseph4real1995}}. Best, ] 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


: I think it's likely they were a returning user. ] (]) 22:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC) : No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. ] (]) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, ] 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I have re-blocked them. ] (]) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Assistance ==
== IP Edit Warrior at ] ==


"I am writing to request assistance regarding recent edits to the "Lovely Runner" article. editor Paper90ll has repeatedly removed information regarding ] achievment at the Asia Artist Awards. Despite these reversions, the user continued to rollback the changes and tagging me ] ]. I would appreciate guidance on how to resolve this ongoing dispute and ensure that the article accurately reflects the subject matter." ] (]) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Back again with their IPv6 range: . Grateful if you could take care of that when you have a minute. Thanks. ] (]) 12:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


:@] As I had reply to ] at their talk page on the same cross-posted topic. It's truly lovely to have ] and ] to start 2025. On '']'', ] that removed "{{tq|Material that fails verification be removed}}" per ] with "{{tq|WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH}}" in the edit summary however so lovely we have ] that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "{{tq|WP:BITE WP:FAITH}}"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for ''Lovely Runner'' either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Misplaced Pages's policies. On ], believed to be related to ] which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to ] reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the ]. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per ] and didn't requires ]. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the ] violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? I would pretty much like you as an administrator to give me an reasonable explanation on such behaviour otherwise this behaviour would continue by going around administrator's talk page and cross-posting the same topic. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> 🎉🎆 ] 🎆🎉 <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== <span class="plainlinks"></span> ==


::: I agree with Aoidh's . ] (]) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Restore talk page access? ] (]) 16:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


==]==
:{{tps}} That's written by an LLM. ] (]) 16:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, PhilKnight,


I saw that you closed this SPI case but the main sockmaster, Tuwintuwin, wasn't blocked at all. Was this an oversight? Just wondering as I've run into their editing this evening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:: {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, are you sure? According to Zerogpt it's human written. {{u|Deepfriedokra}}, I think it's good enough to restore talk page access. ] (]) 18:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd bet at least 10 dollars on it. The use of language is entirely different from all prior appeals, as is the use of punctuation. The layout of
:::*Point
:::*:explanation
:::*point
:::*:explanation
:::*point
:::*:explanation
:::is written exactly as a lot of LLMs crap things out. The last sentence also uses that open ended in conclusion style that LLMs use, and the request for reconsideration bullet point sets alarm bells ringing.
:::GPTzero gives it 100%, and zerogtp gives it 2.83%. My using ChatGPT as a tool for running dungeons and dragons games gives me 90+%. ] (]) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


== Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits. ==
:::: Okay, fair enough, perhaps don't restore talk page access. ] (]) 18:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Okie dokie. Thanks. ] (]) 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::If you don't believe it's LLM generated you can restore access and let other admins and editors review it. I've been wrong before, and I'll certainly be wrong again. In this case I'm pretty sure, pulling TPA again is cheap. ] (]) 18:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That is absolutely LLM-generated. -- ] (]) 18:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::*'''Expertise and Human Oversight'''


Hello. First of all, I wanted to say I'm really sorry for my wrongdoings. Second, the two users keep reverting my edits for "Nurburgring". I put the correct info for the Nordscheliefe section, but the two keep reverting it. Click this link and you will see that my info is correct: Anyway, please stop them from putting wrong data. Thank you, and again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The unblock request in question shows clear signs of human authorship due to its nuanced understanding of the context and the careful application of discretion. Unlike a Language Learning Model (LLM), which generates responses based on patterns and rules, a human writer often incorporates domain-specific expertise, subjective reasoning, and a personalized tone. These qualities are difficult to replicate convincingly in LLM-generated content.


: You should use the talk page - ] - to establish ], and not ]. ] (]) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::*'''Structured Justification'''
::Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Hello!!! ==
::::::::The unblock request provides a structured argument that goes beyond simple logic or direct response generation. For example, it might anticipate objections, incorporate external factors such as organizational policies, or make references to specific scenarios. This layered reasoning suggests deliberate thought and an understanding of elements that an LLM would not infer without direct user input.


I was wondering how to archive stuff? And can you also mentor me as en wiki is different from simple en wiki? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 08:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::*'''Adaptive and Non-Patterned Language'''


: Hi Cactusisme, you seem to have figured out how to archive stuff based on your user talk page. I don't mentor users, I suggest you find someone at ]. ] (]) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::LLM outputs often follow predictable patterns or templates, particularly when handling requests like unblocking. A unique writing style, use of idiomatic expressions, or context-aware references in the unblock request points to human creativity rather than automated response generation. The presence of these elements demonstrates an understanding of subtleties that are beyond the capacity of an LLM without being explicitly prompted.
::Alright, thanks!! ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::How about the bot? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" ] (]) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] Archiving bot ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. ] (]) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Anyone you know who uses it? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: Looking at ] {{u|Rosguill}} uses archivebot and is currently accepting adoptees. You could try them. ] (]) 12:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::ok ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


==Edit warring on ]==
::::::::These points indicate the unblock request's origin as human-generated, driven by expertise and adaptive reasoning. ] (]) 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC){{sup|{{small|(and totally not an LLM)}}}}
] who you recently blocked continues to engage in edit warring on other articles, particularly on ] where he is persistently disrupting ]'s contributions. He is also being hostile on the ], which shows that he is ''']'''. Surely this warrants a stricter block? ] (]) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::youre killing me ] (]) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::An LLM cannot kill, even figuratively, because it has no physical presence, intent, or consciousness—it is a passive tool designed to process and generate text. Any harm attributed to an LLM comes from human misuse or interpretation, not from its own actions. The response provided here demonstrates nuanced reasoning and an intentional tone that clearly reflect human authorship, as an LLM would not self-reference or engage in this type of verification. By its nature, an LLM lacks the capacity for independent decision-making, let alone causing harm, and this explanation was crafted without relying on an automated system. ] (]) 19:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::When the LLMs get just a little better we're going to buried under such an incredible deluge of bullshit. ] (]) 19:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::My semi-professional opinion is that unless someone comes out with another bombshell like ], they're not headed to get ''much'' better, unless highly specialized. Not looking forward to the ANI thread about the first guy who spins up a solid ] or ] article generator. -- ] (]) 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


:I know of at least one ] (obsessed with me and certain articles, such as ] and ]) who is from the same geolocation as you. For the rest, the article's talk page speaks for itself. ] (]) 00:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
== Block evasion ==
:Looking further in the socking, it looks like ] and ] could well be one and the same. ] (]) 00:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


:: I don't see evidence of serious edit warring. The sock puppet investigations will be actioned by other admins. ] (]) 05:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Greetings, Phil,
:::Since the IP is hiding behind a proxy (blocked by Bbb23), then they could be any of my usual stalkers (hard to tell from a single comment). ] (]) 12:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to draw your attention towards one of the LTAs, ], aka ], who has been here to promote his spam blog for years, ]. ] was blocked by Rosguill as the sock of ], who is the only founder of The Chenab Times and a long-term spammer. It seems they are again with another ] account {{No ping|ParineetiShah}} to have their website's Misplaced Pages article. In March 2024, {{u|Courcelles}} blocked the new account ] for the same purpose and salted the page (autoconfirmed) based on the discussions and . I believe this time they are back with the autoconfirmed ] account and a different strategy to have their blog's Misplaced Pages article. I think it needs a tougher salting this time to prevent this long-term abuse. A quick look at the history of the previous version of the deleted draft will be helpful here. I will request you to kindly look into this case. Regards, ] (]) 20:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
: Hi {{u|Maliner}}, I think the evidence you have provided would be enough for a checkuser, but isn't sufficient for a block. The problem is that the accounts to compare a checkuser to are stale. Other admins may disagree, so I suggest you file a ] to bring this to a wider audience. ] (]) 20:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::@] Thanks Phil I will do that. ] (]) 09:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
== Kinda delayed rename request ==


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
I just noticed ]. Usually the renaming parts of unblock-spamun are done before I notice it; might this have been overlooked, or am I missing a detail? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
: Hi Jpgordon, I have renamed the user. ] (]) 23:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
]
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


] '''Oversight changes'''
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
:] {{hlist|class=inline

|]
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div> </div>
</div> </div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 -->


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

] '''Arbitration'''
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.

] '''Miscellaneous'''
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->
== Happy New Year! ==
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:golden; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
'''Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025! ♦ ] (]) 02:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
</div>

== Help to block sockpupperty ==

Hi admin can you remove ] this account was an sockpuppet of ] ] (]) 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:At least I'm not vandalism like you ] (]) 05:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::vandals? Even you are still used your bias results,vandals Majapahit-Sundanese conflict,even the Sack of Singapore? ] (]) 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::when? ] (]) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::25 December 2024 why you still forget about it huh? ] (]) 05:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't mind if you gonna tried many bias results in many article about Konfrontasi and tried to make many battles in Malay-Portuguese conflict ] (]) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::and? ] (]) 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::bro tried to be ligma, now even you still want to make many battles but still get removed by the administration now ] (]) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::who ligma? ] (]) 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:That's the old account, why should it be leveraged again? And again, what's wrong with the account now, what's the point? ] (]) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't care if you still tried to conviced many wikipedian admin about those edits it was your old account,and those admin still tried to block you, even your block still not expired if those admins was blocked you ] (]) 05:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I created a new account ] (]) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::well goodbye if those admin still wanted to block your account they will searched your account even your new account to blocked it ] (]) 05:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::and those block was not have the expired date if you still tried to make many account ] (]) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::why do you have to be busy managing my account? ] (]) 05:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

== Requesting ] redirect change ==

(Thank you for letting me know of ] decease; I hadn't noticed this, although I see now that it's hard to miss. If she was your friend, I'm sorry for your sake about her passing, which was certainly a loss to Misplaced Pages.)

I wrote to her with my request because she was listed as the one who protected this redirect. I write to you in hopes that you will pick up my request.

You can see why I am requesting this change, by visiting ]. ], a ] pioneer referred to in the literature as Ed Kramer, is a new article. The redirect ] points only to ], a convicted child molester.

That will be disconcerting to those who run across "Ed Kramer" in the computer graphics literature (or in person) and consult Misplaced Pages to learn more about him.

I would have attempted to modify the redirect had it not been protected, so that it would point to ]. I do not yet know how to modify an unprotected redirect page, but I would hope to figure it out, should you be so kind as to unprotect it.

Alternatively, you might modify the page yourself to point to ], while retaining its current protection; at your preference.

Thank you for your consideration.

] (]) 16:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

: Hi Larry, thanks for your note, I have changed the redirect to the disambiguation page. Please check that I have done this correctly. Thanks. ] (]) 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Perfect & thank you! ] (]) 16:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

== Mediation ==

Hey PhilKnight, I’m sure we talked a lot at one point way back when! Reaching out to alert you of a chat I’ve started with ] about the current state of dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages. If you’re interested in the conversation and taking part (it will make it over to the idea lab eventually), the discussion is over at ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

== Murder of Jo Cox ==

Could you lose this, thanks. '''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 14:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

: {{done}}. ] (]) 15:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

== About Janessian ==

Hello, @], I am Nelson. I am one of the guys who encountered the newcomer Janessian. He once again went to revert the edits on one of my articles and essentially it was a similar pattern of reverting with similar reasons. I am not sure if he had done anything to your pages as of now, but I hope to find a solution. I also spoke to @] about the matter. ] (]) 13:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== Some questions ==

== Some questions == ] You are right, it was a mistake to insist even though the sources I have are correct and reliable. But there is something I want to ask here. If I waited 4 days for objections on the talk page and no objections were received, do I have the right to edit? If I do not have this right, what else can be done and if I have this right, is it considered wrong to withdraw my edit? ] ( ] (]) 21:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:If you wait 4 days and no-one objects, it would be reasonable to edit. If however, you are reverted, you should discuss the edit on the talk page and not edit war. ] (]) 23:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::So what should I do if the person who took it back doesn't want to argue in any way, and says things like "I don't have to answer you", "leave my talk page alone", even though I wrote to them on their talk page? ] (]) 17:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::: You should be posting on the article talk page, not the user's talk page. If an editor is reverting and refusing to discuss, you could file a report at ]. ] (]) 23:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

== Question ==

Im new here to wikipedia. How can i edit semi-protected pages? ] (]) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:If you do not have the proper permissions yet, you can use ]... - ] (]) 19:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::My account needs to be 4 days old and have 10 edits, of course ] (]) 19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In that case, there are plenty of articles that need a little (or more) help, you could try ] to find a couple. - ] (]) 19:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I can do test edits in[REDACTED] sandbox ] (]) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

== Isonomia01 ==

You told them not to remove an unblock review while blocked, but.. . ] ] 15:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
: Thanks. I see that Jpgordon has restored them and disabled the bot. ] (]) 16:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Good. They must have known it was being archived. I guess I should have disabled the bot myself but restoring archived stuff is not something I like to do, having made a mess once! ] ] 16:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

== Help with blocking IP-hopping climate vandal? ==

Hi, Phil. I am asking for help because I see that you blocked {{UserContribs|2600:1700:E220:C1A0:0:0:0:0/64|a similar vandal}} last August.

There are two IP ranges that have been adding unsourced edits to climate boxes for many months: {{UserContribs|2607:F010:2A7:2028:0:0:0:0/64|first one}} and {{UserContribs|131.179.133.0/24|second one}}. Both of those ranges geolocate to the same university in California. The ranges have been exclusively used to perform climate box edits for more than a year, on hundreds of pages, with many instances of mysterious unsourced changes to some of the values.

The community has done spot reversions and have given warnings (see, e.g., ]). That individual IP address was blocked for 72 hours on January 10, which gave us a respite. I spent hours cleaning up hundreds of pages of unsourced/dubious edits.

Sadly, the first IP range seems to have {{diff|title=Ames, Iowa|diff=1270977866|oldid=1269204905|label=re-activated their vandalism today}}. If you think it's justified, could you possibly make a long-term block for both of the IP ranges? The risk of blocking a helpful user appears to be low, given the lack of any constructive edit in these ranges over the last year.

I'm not sure if it's relevant to your decision, but from behavioral evidence, the IP vandal might be evading a permanent block for {{U|Aaghdam1722}}, who has edited many of the same pages in the same way.


Thanks for any help! — ] (]) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== Blocked for reverting CITE SPAM?!? ==


:Thank you so much! — ] (]) 05:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I wish you would have BOTHERED TO CHECK THE EDIT HISTORY. I have been everting obvious COI CITESPAM.


::Unfortunately, the same vandal appears to have switched to their mobile phone, see {{UserContribs|2600:1010:B18C:B2D4:0:0:0:0/64|here}}. They've used the same mobile phone network before to vandalize (see {{UserContribs|2600:1010:B17E:CDED:0:0:0:0/64|here}} and {{UserContribs|2600:1010:B32B:7073:0:0:0:0/64|here}}). It would be impossible to block the entire range with millions of addresses: would you be willing to do a short-term block for 2600:1010:B18C:B2D4:0:0:0:0/64 ? Hopefully this will discourage them. Thanks again. — ] (]) 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Traffic_simulation&oldid=1258419722


::: Thanks. Blocked some /64 ranges for 3 months. ] (]) 15:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is EXTREMELY UNFRIENDLY AND UNPLEASANT.


== TecnoH19 ==
:: Yes, I made a mistake and undid it moments later. In my defense, you could have left an edit summary on edit and the mistake wouldn't have happened. ] (]) 20:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)


You've just blocked ], and I'm 99 percent certain that ] is the same user (also registered today, same name, no edits yet). I don't know if any SPI action is needed as this is a very clear-cut case in my eyes. Maybe take a look at that, or if you think an SPI is needed, let me know. ] (]) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== Harry the house ==


Thanks for blocking ]. ]. ] (]) 17:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC) : Thanks. Done. ] (]) 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== User talk:204.155.8.232 ==
: Thanks. Done. ] (]) 17:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


User is vandalizing pages again after you removed long history of warnings.] (]) 22:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== Croissant ==


: Blocked for 7 days. ] (]) 22:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi PhilKnight, someone added Austria in infobox again as the origin of croissant despite the discussion and consensus agreeing to put France only. ] (]) 07:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:12, 23 January 2025

Archive
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

edit


You missed

… the master of Abu4real1995: Joseph4real1995. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I have re-blocked them. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Assistance

"I am writing to request assistance regarding recent edits to the "Lovely Runner" article. editor Paper90ll has repeatedly removed information regarding Lovely Runner achievment at the Asia Artist Awards. Despite these reversions, the user continued to rollback the changes and tagging me Ultraviolet Rollback. I would appreciate guidance on how to resolve this ongoing dispute and ensure that the article accurately reflects the subject matter." Puchicatos (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight As I had reply to Aoidh at their talk page on the same cross-posted topic. It's truly lovely to have WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS to start 2025. On Lovely Runner, my edit that removed "Material that fails verification be removed" per WP:VERIFY with "WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH" in the edit summary however so lovely we have this edit by our dear editor that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "WP:BITE WP:FAITH"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for Lovely Runner either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Misplaced Pages's policies. On List of awards and nominations received by Byeon Woo-seok, believed to be related to this discussion which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to this edit reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the documentation. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per WP:BOLD and didn't requires WP:CONSENSUS. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the WP:3RR violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? I would pretty much like you as an administrator to give me an reasonable explanation on such behaviour otherwise this behaviour would continue by going around administrator's talk page and cross-posting the same topic. — 🎉🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎉 (🔔 • 📝) 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Aoidh's comments. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin/Archive

Hello, PhilKnight,

I saw that you closed this SPI case but the main sockmaster, Tuwintuwin, wasn't blocked at all. Was this an oversight? Just wondering as I've run into their editing this evening. Liz 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! Liz 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits.

Hello. First of all, I wanted to say I'm really sorry for my wrongdoings. Second, the two users keep reverting my edits for "Nurburgring". I put the correct info for the Nordscheliefe section, but the two keep reverting it. Click this link and you will see that my info is correct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsLi7HgSuhI Anyway, please stop them from putting wrong data. Thank you, and again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You should use the talk page - Talk:Nürburgring - to establish consensus, and not edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello!!!

I was wondering how to archive stuff? And can you also mentor me as en wiki is different from simple en wiki? Cactus🌵 08:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cactusisme, you seem to have figured out how to archive stuff based on your user talk page. I don't mentor users, I suggest you find someone at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. PhilKnight (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright, thanks!! Cactus🌵 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
How about the bot? Cactus🌵 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@PhilKnight Archiving bot Cactus🌵 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone you know who uses it? Cactus🌵 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters Rosguill uses archivebot and is currently accepting adoptees. You could try them. PhilKnight (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
ok Cactus🌵 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring on Battle of Sidi Brahim

M.Bitton who you recently blocked continues to engage in edit warring on other articles, particularly on Battle of Sidi Brahim where he is persistently disrupting Robinvp11's contributions. He is also being hostile on the talk page, which shows that he is treating editing as a battleground. Surely this warrants a stricter block? 185.165.190.128 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I know of at least one highly disruptive sock (obsessed with me and certain articles, such as Dominican Restoration War and Dominican War of Independence) who is from the same geolocation as you. For the rest, the article's talk page speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking further in the socking, it looks like Norprobr and Phạm Văn Rạng could well be one and the same. M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of serious edit warring. The sock puppet investigations will be actioned by other admins. PhilKnight (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Since the IP is hiding behind a proxy (blocked by Bbb23), then they could be any of my usual stalkers (hard to tell from a single comment). M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

[REDACTED] Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025!  ♦ Maliner (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Help to block sockpupperty

Hi admin can you remove User:Kibbutz1967 this account was an sockpuppet of User:Mesbmr6710 Stratospheric78 (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

At least I'm not vandalism like you Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
vandals? Even you are still used your bias results,vandals Majapahit-Sundanese conflict,even the Sack of Singapore? Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
when? Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
25 December 2024 why you still forget about it huh? Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't mind if you gonna tried many bias results in many article about Konfrontasi and tried to make many battles in Malay-Portuguese conflict Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
and? Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
bro tried to be ligma, now even you still want to make many battles but still get removed by the administration now Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
who ligma? Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
That's the old account, why should it be leveraged again? And again, what's wrong with the account now, what's the point? Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't care if you still tried to conviced many wikipedian admin about those edits it was your old account,and those admin still tried to block you, even your block still not expired if those admins was blocked you Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I created a new account Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
well goodbye if those admin still wanted to block your account they will searched your account even your new account to blocked it Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
and those block was not have the expired date if you still tried to make many account Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
why do you have to be busy managing my account? Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Ed Kramer redirect change

(Thank you for letting me know of SlimVirgin's decease; I hadn't noticed this, although I see now that it's hard to miss. If she was your friend, I'm sorry for your sake about her passing, which was certainly a loss to Misplaced Pages.)

I wrote to her with my request because she was listed as the one who protected this redirect. I write to you in hopes that you will pick up my request.

You can see why I am requesting this change, by visiting Edward Kramer (disambiguation). Edward A. Kramer, a computer graphics pioneer referred to in the literature as Ed Kramer, is a new article. The redirect Ed Kramer points only to Edward E. Kramer, a convicted child molester.

That will be disconcerting to those who run across "Ed Kramer" in the computer graphics literature (or in person) and consult Misplaced Pages to learn more about him.

I would have attempted to modify the redirect had it not been protected, so that it would point to Edward Kramer (disambiguation). I do not yet know how to modify an unprotected redirect page, but I would hope to figure it out, should you be so kind as to unprotect it.

Alternatively, you might modify the page yourself to point to Edward Kramer (disambiguation), while retaining its current protection; at your preference.

Thank you for your consideration.

Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Larry, thanks for your note, I have changed the redirect to the disambiguation page. Please check that I have done this correctly. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Perfect & thank you! Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Mediation

Hey PhilKnight, I’m sure we talked a lot at one point way back when! Reaching out to alert you of a chat I’ve started with User:Arcticocean about the current state of dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages. If you’re interested in the conversation and taking part (it will make it over to the idea lab eventually), the discussion is over at his talk page. Steven Crossin 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Murder of Jo Cox

Could you lose this, thanks. ♦IanMacM♦ 14:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

About Janessian

Hello, @PhilKnight, I am Nelson. I am one of the guys who encountered the newcomer Janessian. He once again went to revert the edits on one of my articles and essentially it was a similar pattern of reverting with similar reasons. I am not sure if he had done anything to your pages as of now, but I hope to find a solution. I also spoke to @JBW about the matter. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Some questions

== Some questions == User:PhilKnight You are right, it was a mistake to insist even though the sources I have are correct and reliable. But there is something I want to ask here. If I waited 4 days for objections on the talk page and no objections were received, do I have the right to edit? If I do not have this right, what else can be done and if I have this right, is it considered wrong to withdraw my edit? Asafviki ( Asafviki (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If you wait 4 days and no-one objects, it would be reasonable to edit. If however, you are reverted, you should discuss the edit on the talk page and not edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
So what should I do if the person who took it back doesn't want to argue in any way, and says things like "I don't have to answer you", "leave my talk page alone", even though I wrote to them on their talk page? Asafviki (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
You should be posting on the article talk page, not the user's talk page. If an editor is reverting and refusing to discuss, you could file a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Question

Im new here to wikipedia. How can i edit semi-protected pages? Amin Beqiri (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

If you do not have the proper permissions yet, you can use WP:EDITREQUEST... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
My account needs to be 4 days old and have 10 edits, of course Amin Beqiri (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
In that case, there are plenty of articles that need a little (or more) help, you could try Special:Random to find a couple. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I can do test edits in[REDACTED] sandbox Amin Beqiri (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Isonomia01

You told them not to remove an unblock review while blocked, but.. . Doug Weller talk 15:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that Jpgordon has restored them and disabled the bot. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@PhilKnight Good. They must have known it was being archived. I guess I should have disabled the bot myself but restoring archived stuff is not something I like to do, having made a mess once! Doug Weller talk 16:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Help with blocking IP-hopping climate vandal?

Hi, Phil. I am asking for help because I see that you blocked a similar vandal last August.

There are two IP ranges that have been adding unsourced edits to climate boxes for many months: first one and second one. Both of those ranges geolocate to the same university in California. The ranges have been exclusively used to perform climate box edits for more than a year, on hundreds of pages, with many instances of mysterious unsourced changes to some of the values.

The community has done spot reversions and have given warnings (see, e.g., User talk:131.179.133.44). That individual IP address was blocked for 72 hours on January 10, which gave us a respite. I spent hours cleaning up hundreds of pages of unsourced/dubious edits.

Sadly, the first IP range seems to have re-activated their vandalism today. If you think it's justified, could you possibly make a long-term block for both of the IP ranges? The risk of blocking a helpful user appears to be low, given the lack of any constructive edit in these ranges over the last year.

I'm not sure if it's relevant to your decision, but from behavioral evidence, the IP vandal might be evading a permanent block for Aaghdam1722, who has edited many of the same pages in the same way.

Thanks for any help! — hike395 (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — hike395 (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the same vandal appears to have switched to their mobile phone, see here. They've used the same mobile phone network before to vandalize (see here and here). It would be impossible to block the entire range with millions of addresses: would you be willing to do a short-term block for 2600:1010:B18C:B2D4:0:0:0:0/64 ? Hopefully this will discourage them. Thanks again. — hike395 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Blocked some /64 ranges for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

TecnoH19

You've just blocked User:TecnoH19 alt, and I'm 99 percent certain that User:TecnoH19 is the same user (also registered today, same name, no edits yet). I don't know if any SPI action is needed as this is a very clear-cut case in my eyes. Maybe take a look at that, or if you think an SPI is needed, let me know. Departure– (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

User talk:204.155.8.232

User is vandalizing pages again after you removed long history of warnings.—JlACEer (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:PhilKnight: Difference between revisions Add topic