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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

I, ~2026-11092-89 edited the Wikipedia page for the iPhone 4s to show the 2013 and 2011 logos instead of just the 2011 logo instead of making people forget that the 2014 logo existed so the phone could fit alongside the 5S and 5C. Can you reply, PhilKnight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-11092-89 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post. I have restored your edit. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I reported a vandal, ~2026-64893-0, as being a sockpuppet of those TAs who vandalised Mario Kart 8, among other pages. You blocked them as a "long-term abuse" account. If they are an LTA, would you know which specific LTA they are a part of? The sockpuppeteer themselves is probably on their 20th sock account, but as far as I understand, they have no seperate LTA casepage. Somepinkdude (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry I have forgotten. They are a long term vandal going back years. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PhilKnight. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I knew it was bad, but I didn't think it was that bad! Thanks for handling it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Phil for handling the sockpuppet/vandalizer/person who screamed death threats at me. Alien456 (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have blocked @Philippines EEZ & Jurisdictions: indefinitely. ([1]). In this discussion on his talk page among other editors, it has been suggested by @JWilz12345: that he be partially unblocked to allow him to edit his own talk page and to participate in discussions of the issue behind the actions that led to the block. I am passing that suggestion along. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Why exactly was I blocked from editing? The editor removed the entire awards section even though only a few entries were unverified. I found this step very disappointing. As editors, this is the last thing I expect from another editor. There was no warning—just a block.

After I was blocked, the same person who removed the awards section added back a few of the awards. Princessruby (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) "There was no warning" - I see 4 warnings on your user talk page starting at User_talk:Princessruby#Non-notable awards, again and continuing through the next section. Cabayi (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for edit warring. You were repeatedly warned on your user talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you changed the block settings of this user to indefinite due to socking. However, if they were socking, shouldn't they be blocked from all namespaces instead of just Article space? The current block only blocks that namespace. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 22:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SANKOMOTA/Archive - I decided to block their socks, but leave the partial block for SANKOMOTA. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HI, I'm terribly sorry to disturb you again. Yes, it's the same user I told you about. This time, he's moved on to harassment. See for yourself here. I'll leave it in your capable hands. There's nothing more I can do about it. Odysseus Giacosa (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For dealing with that annoyingly persistent LTA. I appreciate it! JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a feeling something is going on with those airport edits... the usernames Ernest359 and Ernest35K are just too conveniently similar. I originally tagged them against ~2026-93973, but I've just seen 35K has existed as an account and has been editing since 2024... I can hear quacking, but I'm not so sure who the master is now Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilKnight!

I wanted the point out that blocking the "ConiferFoods" user page was not a good idea. Would you mind reverting the block please? It really is a conflict of interest for me. I don't believe that was a fair blockage, as ConiferFoods was neither a vandal or a sockpuppet. Thanks! A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RimesWithOranges, the block is because the username represents a company instead of an individual. See Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_usernames. PhilKnight (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User [~2026-80783-3] appears to be a sock of [~2025-38313-58] whom you previously blocked indefinitely. The edits made to Raging Waters Sydney and Wet'n'Wild Gold Coast exhibit the same pattern — namely random insertion of Disney California Adventure and Universal Studios Singapore, and unexplained deletion of entire paragraphs—JlACEer (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		Sorry to generate so much work with this SPI, but thank you so much for being so thorough. I'm very grateful for all you do. • a frantic turtle 🐢 16:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the temp-block on the aforementioned user. Given they went all of the way to vandalize my talk page, I think they are not only a disruptive editor, but also a vandal. Do you think an indef is reasonable instead? TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 03:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're a sockpuppet too. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dorian88A aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheTechie, I missed that they vandalized your talk page. I agree with you, and have upped their block to indef. PhilKnight (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you blocked User:Harioppkk for being a sockpuppet. I'm a bit unclear how to report people but i believe that this is the same user as User:ArchonnRai. ArchonnRai was making high frequency edits to Batman related articles yesterday, is a very new account, and they stopped editing at 11:31 on Feb 14th, at which point Harioppkk began editing at 11:38, later editing The Dark Knight to make almost exactly the same edit as ArchonnRai, then stopped editing at 12:04 and ArchonnRai resumed editing at 13:22. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(here from a related issue) @Darkwarriorblake To report a suspected sockpuppet, you can go to Sockpuppet investigations. A case has already been made regarding this account, you can view it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueDIAMOND20s. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope you can work with this investigation again as the open cases are piling up. This user was known as ThijsStoop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fairyspit ~2026-10620-41 (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you placed a 1RR restriction on Kurzon as a requirement for their unblock from an indef, here. The restriction was owing to their edit warring. I wanted to let you know that they have violated that. Initial edit (several edits), first revert, second revert. I'm sure you're aware, but they've been blocked for edit warring many times, including on this article, which led to the indef. This article is also under CTOPs. I do not believe this user intends to stop edit warring after all this time. — Czello ^(music) 22:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @ToBeFree: who adminstered the initial indef. — Czello ^(music) 22:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Come on Kurzon, what are you doing there ... what do you think about this? Had you forgotten about the restriction? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to count these things. Kurzon (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean this to sound facetious, but - you're finding it hard to count to 2? — Czello ^(music) 11:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Kurzon (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Kurzon (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If Kurzon is unblocked, I would suggest retaining a partial block at professional wrestling, including the talk page. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An article block is preferable to a general one. It's ridiculous to ban someone from the whole site for six months because we quibbled over semantics. Kurzon (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: - how do you feel about an unblock with a reblock from the professional wrestling article? PhilKnight (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "a quibble over semantics", it's is a persistent and long-term habit of edit warring, WP:OWN, WP:1AM, and in general being unable to collaborate with others.

@ToBeFree: @PhilKnight: Obviously I'm in favour of the indef being reinstated and that being the end of it. However, if for some reason the decision was made to show Kurzon leniency (though that has happened a lot), then I think an indefinite P-block from professional wrestling would have to enforced (in addition to the 1RR restriction), as this article is clearly a problem area for them. They have edit warred on other articles, too, but it's always it's most severe on this article. — Czello ^(music) 12:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Call it punitive or encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms, in the interest of saving the community time, saving the admins nerves and ensuring that such violations remain unpleasantly costly for the little reward they bring, I'll change it to a sitewide two-week block and oppose any appeals. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding professional wrestling, I don't see it as a problem limited to that one article and wouldn't be much interested in the lengthy discussions that inevitably arise one day when that block is appealed. But I also don't oppose someone adding a partial block on top of the two sitewide weeks. I do see that it could make sense looking at the block log; it isn't the first time that this article was a honeypot for edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I argue that leaving them unblocked from this article will cause more lengthy discussions in the long run. It's clearly a problem area for them, far more than other articles. It would be in the best interests of the site that they are P blocked from this article indefinitely.

If your argument is that they're just as troublesome on every other article... then why are we even entertaining an unblock at all?

We keep giving Kurzon chances, and yet they continually take the piss. What's in it for us? — Czello ^(music) 22:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with anyone else placing a partial block; it's a 2-week sitewide one from my personal side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | March 2026 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 [[WP:MAR26]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit 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) 11:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:SINGLE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 19 § Wikipedia:SINGLE until a consensus is reached. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]