Hi, please see [1], pretty sure adding a case to the archives is not allowed. I tried to revert it but it was disallowed by an edit filter. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ratnahastin, I undid his report and left him a message. PhilKnight (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @PhilKnight, I noticed you added a block to this account (and with good reason). I've reached out to the editor to remedy this as soon as possible.

But one thing we've encountered is that the autoblock covers Wiki Ed's dashboard IP address which we use to communicate with enrolled Wiki Ed student editors. I'd like to request for the block to be adjusted to anon-only in order for us to continue to use the dashboard. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I have lifted the block. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:PhilKnight, as you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magichero1234 one week ago (and the case has now reopened), would you be able to kindly protect Deccani language after the new report is actioned? This will deter future sockpuppets from being created by User:Magichero1234. I appreciate your help. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anupam, I am not convinced about semi-protection for Deccani language as the amount of disruption is limited. You could request at WP:RFPP to see if another admin thinks it's worthwhile. PhilKnight (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you revert my edit? Smatteo499 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have left an edit summary. Your edit removed the instructions to post at WP:AIV. I have blocked the vandal you reported. PhilKnight (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm an it.wiki user, so I don't know very well how to edit en.wiki! Thank you. Regards Smatteo499 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilKnight. Could you please check whether Srf123 is related to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ? This is based on editor interaction and several shared behaviors. Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ is  Stale so a comparison won't work. Also, I would need more detailed evidence to justify the check. PhilKnight (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2025 (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. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

looks like you are already on the case, Thanks! Gaismagorm (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User 204.155.8.232 returned to posting nonsense shortly after block was lifted. I reported to AIV, but they did not look at content closely enough. See this edit. "Children's pool was Universal Studios Japan"? And this edit: "Raging Waters Sydney debuted with immediate predecessor, Disney California Adventure"? This is all nonsense and these pages have been getting vandalized for years.—JlACEer (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 months. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three week old account, ~500 edits, and about 400 of them removing postnominals, as well as accusations of vandalism in the edit summary?! What gives? This is well dodgy! Serial (speculates here) 20:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: There was another editor recently doing exactly the same thing, removing post-nominals at a great rate, either using no edit summary or using "rvv" when it wasn't rvving, not communicating on talk page. I think it got raised at AN or ANI, but our search facility is not the best for finding threads like that. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize you as an esteemed member of the Wikipedia community so I am requesting an unblock per the blocking admin's instructions.

Page block: 2025 Canadian federal election
Admin's Conditions: 21:21, 26 January 2025 Beeblebrox talk contribs blocked ErrorCorrection1 talk contribs from the page 2025 Canadian federal election with an expiration time of indefinite (edit warring/disruptive editing Any admin is free to unblock if/when the election date is firmed up and/or this user shows a willingness to respect consensus-based decision-making)

Conditions met: I hereby show a willingness to respect consensus-based decision-making. I am making this request more than 3 weeks later, intentionally, to allow me to reflect. This shows excellent impulse control and good Wikipedia behaviour.

Admin does not deny my request outright but states "Another admin will review any request you may make and can act as they see fit. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)"

Condensed background: I believed the article's lede was too generic and appears like it was written several years ago. It did not reflect reliable news sources' reports over the past several months. The election must take place by October but no news reports say this is likely, rather point to recent developments. GoodDay (who was been blocked multiple times) and Ivanvector reverted these changes without discussion. I eventually stopped trying and withdrew from the article (04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC). Eventually, other editors followed my suggestions and did change the lede a few days later.

Before the lede was changed, I abandoned the effort but did make similar changes to the body of the article, which was an effort to WP:BRD (which is different from changing the lede, which was the first effort). GoodDay and Ivanvector immediately reverted it without discussion. I withdrew (23:13, 25 January 2025)

GoodDay and Ivanvector are edit warriors and took this to ANI despite ANI saying that it's for emergencies. They did not even do a RFC. There, they got me page blocked about 24 hours later.

Reasons for un-page block:

• 1. Realized that fighting is not good so I not only stopped BEFORE the block but am even more aware not to do it (this, I confess)
• 2. Fulfill the conditions by stating that I hereby show a willingness to respect consensus-based decision making.
• 3. My behaviour is attested by the blocking admin, who wrote...

you going away for over a week.

Now, I will grant that this was a wise thing to do. You were obviously very agitated during the incident that led to the block and walking away when it was issued actually surprised me, as I assumed you'd throw a fit, and it is to your credit that you did not.

(23:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Beeblebrox)

This is very significant because it shows that I have a calm demeanor and work for a better Wikipedia, not a fighting mood.

• 4. Unblock would meet WP:AGF Assume Good Faith
• 5. Unblock would meet WP:UBCHEAP Unblock is cheap and bad behaviour can easily be punished
• 6. Unblock would meet WP:LASTCHANCE. It's not at that point but I would treat it as a "last chance"
• 7. Blocking is not supposed to be punishment.
• 8. I have demonstrated in an even more controversial article, Gaza Strip, that I present useful ideas in the talk page and not be a party to any edit wars. Less controversial article edits and talk page edits have also been done.

The 2 opposing editors, GoodDay and Ivanvector, behave badly and don't know how to drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse. Even as recent as a few days ago, they followed me around and tried to convince the blocking admin to punish me MORE, but he did not comply with them. I realize that those two are aggressive and bad, but I pledge to either ignore that and work with them or stay away from them. That shows a maturity that they do not display.

If you page unblock me, I will be mindful as to maintain your good reputation and will not embarrass you by making the unblock look like a bad call. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Respectfully submitted, ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@ErrorCorrection1: Please see the block notice on your talk page that indicates how to request an unblock. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed that you have unblocked a user with an one account restriction. Do you think this restriction is still valid? I have noticed that the user in question has made a new account. Please see w:simple:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archives/2025-02#Users_at_Adama_Joseph_Adama for related simplewiki CU results, and w:simple:Special:Diff/10083627 for the latest relevant CU request. I hope this helps you. MathXplore (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MathXplore, they haven't actually edited with the new accounts on this site as far as I can tell. If they do, they would be blocked. But, I won't block just yet. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]