Jump to content

User talk:RoySmith/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, RoySmith, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 13:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this when the synths go crazy and hijack the planetary defense system to destroy the server farm? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-45

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Mobile IP editors are now able to receive warning notices indicating they have a talk page message on the mobile website (similar to the orange banners available on desktop). These notices will be displayed on every page outside of the main namespace and every time the user attempts to edit. The notice on desktop now has a slightly different colour. [1][2]

Changes later this week

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Ugochukwu75 resurfaces after 4 years

I listed Film Fanatical10069 as a possible sockpuppet of Ugochukwu75, but that account hadn't been active in 4 years, as you noted. Magically, the day after Ugochukwu75 was banned for sockpuppetry, and admitting to paid editing, Film Fanatical10069 has shown up again with this nonsense. Could you please have a look at that account again? It strains credulity to think that this isn't the same person as Ugochukwu75. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

As I do a little more digging I find that this edit was Film Fanatical10069's second-ever edit. That account also attempted to add the movie poster to the same article. Given the paid editing status of Ugochukwu75, seems like this Film Fanatical10069 account is certainly linked, since 99% of his edits were to promote the Wheels movie. Now he's come back to life right after Ugochukwu75 appealed his block and was denied. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll take a look. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fred Zepelin I'm doing some digging right now, but could I ask you to file a new report for me? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Do I start from scratch? The previous one was my first sockpuppet report - if I need to add on to that, I'll need to read up on how. Looking now but if you could point me to a link I appreciate it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Just use whatever process you used to file the first one. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
In my search, I found and followed the instructions to install Twinkle - that was easier than the first time. I think it worked, it auto-added a section to the Ugochukwu75 investigation page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Unblock Blkfrasure please

Who can we contact to unblock my son's Wikipedia account? He's still brand new to this space and it's been a pretty rough ride so far. You mentioned you'd leave the final decision to someone else. I don't think anyone cares to review the unblock request. What can he do? bfrasure(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It's on the queue to be looked at, but I also requested that somebody take a look sooner. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bfrasure: I'm willing to take a look at this given Roy's non-objection. I've asked you and your son a question on his talk page. Please both respond there, sooner rather than later if possible. In short, asking if you have familiarized yourselves with socking policy and conflicts of interest policy as Roy had suggested as a potential way out of this. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocks

You've blocked multiple accounts for the same reason of being a sockpuppet of Cypriot Chauvinist even though with my original HKyprosEinaiElliniki account I had tried explaining how it would literally be impossible I be a sock, I have taken both time off wiki and everything and every time I come back, even though I dont provoke and most of the time im making new pages, within days im blocked by the same admin (You) for the same thing even though it doesn't stand, what is it I have to do to get you to stop doing this, because clearly taking time off of wikipedia doesnt help. 62.228.200.72 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, you've created something like 30 socks over the past year. I see you've also made several requests to be unblocked, all of which have been denied by different admins, and you continuing to create numerous socks isn't going to help. You should read Wikipedia:Standard offer. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Would you like to do the usual with Draft:Battle of Kotza-Kaya please? FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I dont know how many accounts ive made since HKypros so im not going to state numbers, what I will say is, as I said before, ive done the whole few months off gig and it lands me in the same spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.200.72 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Riboflavin review

Thank you for taking up this task. David notMD (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-46

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • Sometimes, edits made on iOS using the visual editor save groups of numbers as telephone number links, because of a feature in the operating system. This problem is under investigation. [4]
  • There was a problem with search last week. Many search requests did not work for 2 hours because of a configuration error. [5]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 November. It will be on all wikis from 18 November (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-47

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, And Additional Help If You Have Time Or Advice

Thank you for resolving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OttawaGuy/Archive I understand it can be difficult for administrators to believe that experienced Wikipedia users are attacking new users like myself, but that is exactly what has occurred. As you rightly identified by my activities, there is nothing nefarious about them, I mostly fixed broken links of topics that were of interest to me, which is just naturally how I started exploring Wikipedia, I looked at topics of personal note and followed where it went - sometimes I made some edits as a lot of them had broken references and I was able to fix that (I am still very clumsy with the technical workings here). I have gotten on the wrong side of one or more experienced editors in my first few days, and no matter where I go or what I do since on Wikipedia, I am followed, and punished, even for the most innocuous of changes or the most sketchy of COI claims. The bizarre assertion that I returned from 15 years ago was unfortunately not the most recent effort. The article you mentioned LiveWorkPlay was deleted while I was waiting to have the false accusation cleared up. I also requested harassment protection but I have not heard back. In any event, it seems to me the LiveWorkPlay article was deleted without appropriate discussion as required. It was established through the correct protocols and with many other contributing editors (even if I screwed up a lot in the beginning and took offense at the way COI was explained to me). The article itself was properly established and represented many hours of work among many editors. I know that it was removed as part of the ongoing attacks I am enduring so I am hoping I can get help from an administrator such as yourself to restore the article and protect it from further actions. I am not asking for help with anything else because I don't really know what to ask for, but I am very confident that the article was inappropriately deleted, that the motivation was not the objective betterment of Wikipedia, and that in fairness to all it should be restored and there should be a proper discussion, that includes myself, if it is to face deletion (even though I cannot see any reason for that, I have seen hundreds of articles that are of lesser quality in my own limited time here, and given it is not very old and recently went through a pretty microscopic approval process, something is definitely amiss with the deletion). Thank you for reading this far. Know that my post here will have been read by those who are stalking me and they will likely have a ready response - they always do. Iamthekanadian (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iamthekanadian my recommendation is that if you want to contribute to wikipedia, find areas to edit that are unrelated to LiveWorkPlay. Whether we keep an article or not is decided by community consensus. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveWorkPlay was to delete the article. The chances that the community will change their mind because somebody with an obvious WP:COI is insisting we should have the article is essentially zero. You are welcome to continue to edit on other, unrelated, topics. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@RoySmith Thanks, that's not what I am saying - I am good with the hands-off on that article and it now feels like a very long time ago, and I don't think I had touched it for months - but the article itself (after my initial ham-handed screwups) went through the proper process with experienced editors, not very long ago, so what I am communicating is that just like the false sock accusation, the deletion of that article was a revenge project, and had nothing to do with any deficiencies in the article. I don't think revenge is a valid process for article deletion? It all seems rather obvious, and as I said, the article creation did go through the proper process with a TON of scrutiny, so to have it deleted now just because certain people want to attack me, seems to violate just about every Wikipedia principle there is. I understand that the people who were able to have the article deleted are very powerful, relative to myself, and my ability to stand up to them is zero. That is why I asked for help from an administrator who has some familiarity with the reality that I am indeed experiencing attacks against me, and would see that the deletion of the article coincides with the false sock accusation (it's pretty obvious if you follow the dialogue of the claim that the accusation was not some objective effort to benefit Wikipedia but rather just the latest in a long list of personal and ongoing attacks). But rather than get into that, what I am asking of you, as an administrator, is how it could be that an article that went through tremendous scrutiny and was ultimately approved for creation thanks to the efforts of multiple senior editors, was suddenly deemed problematic and deleted? Article deletion should not be a weapon for personal attacks, and I don't see any other explanation - forget the COI and the rest of it - the logic and facts of the situation seem pretty clear. Iamthekanadian (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
If you believe an article was deleted incorrectly, you should have a conversation with the admin who deleted it (in this case, Liz) who can explain their reasoning. If that does not get you a satisfactory response, the next step would be to open a case at Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV). I don't want to get your hopes up, however; I think it unlikely that DRV will find anything wrong with the process by which the article was deleted, and I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest so you can better understand the issues surrounding your editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again @RoySmith the COI issue is old news - the 2021 article went through all the proper processes and I hadn't touched it since (senior editors worked on it and an administrator approved the publication). It makes no sense that it was suddenly deleted (except out of malice) as I had not done anything to that article after the senior editors worked on it and approved it. I don't see any information about why it was deleted in 2021 - all I can see is from 2018. I think in your sock investigation you had seen this for yourself - that the 2018 article and 2021 article were entirely different. It really doesn't make sense. I know that if someone deleted the article (or had it deleted) for malicious reasons, a newbie like myself has no hope, as I have no power. As an administrator familiar with it to some extent, I figured I'd ask you for help, as I agree with you, there's definitely nothing I can do, the processes won't help me because even though what has occurred is wrong, there is power to do wrong that someone like myself can't defend against. I can't speak truth to power, but I don't have any power - it is up to others if they choose to care or not. Obviously it is your right to not get involved, but it would really be kind if we could not pretend it has something to do with something I have done wrong - the article was written properly and approved properly, it wasn't deleted because of something I did to the article subsequent to that appropriate process, and it wasn't deleted because there is something wrong with the article (that is really what should be driving this) it was deleted because there was a desire to find a way to punish me when the false sock accusation failed to eradicate me. Iamthekanadian (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Annaamalai (soundtrack)

Please respond here. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Riboflavin review

FYI - completed responses to the second set of queries for the Riboflavin GA review and resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD Somebody else will need to do the second review. I know you are disappointed, but you didn't seem to be showing much interest in making improvements. To be honest, starting out with "NO IMPROVEMENT POSSIBLE" didn't set a very good tone for the rest of the review. When I pointed out that two diagrams were left-right reversed from each other, your suggestion to fix the problem by just deleting one didn't go over too well either. If your response had been, "There isn't any standard, and it's common for diagrams to be drawn in an arbitrary orientation" (assuming that is indeed the case), that would have been fine. But offering to resolve the conflict by simply deleting one of the diagrams sure looked like trying to find the least-effort way out. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I anticipated that a new reviewer would take up the task. My approach on the diagrams was because I have never attempted a chem diagram in my 15 years as a Wikipedia editor, and had no faith in my ability to learn how to do that. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I've never drawn a structure diagram on wikipedia either, but when I asked around at WT:WikiProject Chemistry, I found somebody who was willing to help. I also raised a question about the term "lipid solvent". Rather than digging in and figuring out what your source meant when they used the term, you just ducked the issue entirely by deleting the word "lipid". My apologies for being brusque, but this gives the impression that you're more interested in getting through the review than in improving the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
If you look back at the most recent 1,000 edits of this article you will see that I did large blocks of work in February 2016, June 2020 and then extensively in October 2021 before nominating this for GA. I look forward to working with the next reviewer with the expectation that this will be the ninth vitamin article I succeed in raising to GA. David notMD (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-48

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 December. It will be on all wikis from 2 December (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet originally "The Egyptian Army"

Still active on my talkpage. How should I formally report this? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Buckshot06 the best thing is to file a SPI report, but I took care of that for you Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Egyptian army -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Claremont Park

Hello! Your submission of Claremont Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cbl62 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-49

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • MediaWiki 1.38-wmf.11 was scheduled to be deployed on some wikis last week. The deployment was delayed because of unexpected problems.

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 December. It will be on all wikis from 9 December (calendar).
  • At all Wikipedias, a Mentor Dashboard is now available at Special:MentorDashboard. It allows registered mentors, who take care of newcomers' first steps, to monitor their assigned newcomers' activity. It is part of the Growth features. You can learn more about activating the mentor list on your wiki and about the mentor dashboard project.
  • Advanced item The predecessor to the current MediaWiki Action API (which was created in 2008), action=ajax, will be removed this week. Any scripts or bots using it will need to switch to the corresponding API module. [6]
  • Advanced item An old ResourceLoader module, jquery.jStorage, which was deprecated in 2016, will be removed this week. Any scripts or bots using it will need to switch to mediawiki.storage instead. [7]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Need a little advice

Hello RoySmith! I'm sorry to bother you on your talk page, but I think I need some advice... There's a user who has made several reverts on different pages and characterizing them as "vandalism," when they really appear to just be bold. He left me a message on my talk page after I re-reverted one of his edits (and corrected a portion of it,) and I have the interaction here [8]. I wanted to come to you because WP:NOTVAND has been brought to his attention in the past, [9] and I wanted to turn to an experienced user/admin for some help, just making sure I didn't say/type anything through the interaction in poor faith. The other user seems to have a COI as it relates to University of Louisiana at Lafayette, but notwithstanding, I just want to make sure he doesn't continue marking bold edits as vandalism, and when he left me the message on my talk page, I tried to help him out by understanding what is/isn't vandalism, but he seems to take it personally (I did insinuate that he was a WP:SPA, which I did apologize for as I shouldn't have mentioned that.) I would appreciate any help or guidance to make sure I'm not overstepping or not being civil with him otherwise, as that wasn't my intention whatsoever. Thank you again for your help!! Spf121188 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I took a quick look. Yeah, it does look like Frank042316 is being a little possessive about the page, but I'm really hesitant to step into the middle of a content dispute. It sounds like the controversy is about whether "UL" is a legitimate nickname for the school. The best I can suggest is to start a thread on the talk page to see if there's consensus one way or the other. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello Roy: sorry that you were brought into this, as it seems that Spf121188 is making this a personal vendetta against me. He did not 'insinuate' that I am a WP:SPA, he said it. And it has no basis in fact. I think he is the one who should be researching wiki policies about making making personal attacks, for he should have some very simple research about me BEFORE launching that attack. That set a bad tone for our whole encounter, and not one that he can so easily dismiss, as he continues to try to do. More importantly, I think this also goes to show his bias towards me....which he will not drop. So here we are.
As for the "ULaLa" issue, this is not about what is an acceptable abbreviation for the school. "ULaLa" is definitely not. Go ahead and google it; you will not find anything associated with it and the school. It is meant as nothing but an insult, and those who are trying to insert it into an article (fans from other schools, no doubt) are doing nothing but trying to insult that school. Plain and simple. If that is not a clear cut case of vandalism, than I do not know what would be.
Again, sorry he brought you into his this melodrama that he has largely created on his own. Frank042316 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
RoySmith, just to be clear, I just wanted to make sure I didn't overstep my bounds during the conversation on my talk page... He has noted several good faith edits as vandalism, and I just wanted to make sure he understood the policy behind that. I actually made an edit on the page that supported his position, my goal was just to make sure he doesn't continue to notate good faith edits as vandalism, simply because he doesn't agree, as from what I understand, that could be considered disruptive. Spf121188 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, I will drop this issue and I'm sorry to burden you with it, I wasn't expecting you to intervene, I just wanted eyes on the conversation on my talk page to understand how to handle that better for the future. I apologized for my saying he is a WP:SPA, but also wanted to make sure I understand the policy correctly that bold edits in good faith marked as vandalism is disruptive... I won't clutter your talk page anymore. Spf121188 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, like I said, I'm not going to get into the middle of a content dispute. You'll need to work it out on the article talk page and work to gain consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
RoySmith just to be clear, I laid out in very clear terms that the edit in question was indeed vanadlism. Frank042316 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you're having a bad day

Here's a kitten. Hope it helps!

Wikignome Wintergreentalk 19:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I endorse the kitten! FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Much appreciated :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand I was being live-streamed on IRC. Oh well. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Fourteen years later

I changed a redirect you created almost fourteen years to the day. Timing was entirely accidental, but made me chuckle and thought you might enjoy the heads up if you're not watching that page. Happy fourteenth birthday, Museum at Eldridge Street! Star Mississippi 16:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Cool, thanks. It's always good to see our coverage of NYC history improved. Have you considered expanding it a little and submitting it to WP:DYK? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm long out of practice with current procedure for DYKs but will look into it. And yes, totally agree re: NYC history and culture. Have a great day! Star Mississippi 19:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd be happy to give you a hand if you like. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, missed your reply. I would love that for the future if an article overlaps our interests. After a review of the DYK rules it looks like the seven day window would be tight, so I'm not going to proceed. Likely would have said the same given workload even if I'd seen this on time. But if you'd like to, please feel free. Love to see the article/museum get some extra pageviews. If my expansion means you're not eligible as original redirect creator, happy to revert to redirect. Star Mississippi 22:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
No problem. I've got plenty of other things I'm working on. I took a quick look, but most of what I found was really more about the building itself rather than about the museum. What you wrote is a nice article on its own, which is really what matters. Thanks for writing it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. Much of the additional material I found was slightly different takes on the museum's programming as well. So while it could be longer, I'm not sure there's incremental material to be added that would help the reader. I just realized I knew your name from the Randalls Island pedestrian bridge conversation. Hello fellow local editor! Look forward to "meeting" you over more topics. Star Mississippi 00:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, right. Talk:Wards Island Bridge. My latest project is Claremont Park, which unexpectedly led me to Fleetwood Park Racetrack. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi just in case you didn't notice, Eldridge Street Synagogue was Today's featured picture. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't, thanks for flagging. Wow, @Rhododendrites, what a wonderful shot of the sanctuary! Star Mississippi 18:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

But...

What is going on with me ? Also, IPv6 is used in SP investigations by the sockmaster. EG : 2601:22ab:3845:43::328:3, GerMitchell2.0, Gerrmitcell, 23.0.98.232, GERMITCHELLINUPPERCASES accounts or IPs by the sockmaster GerMitchell, who make sock puppet. Best regards, ÉOLE79000 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Dec 15: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

December 15, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
Welcome to Wikimedia New York City!

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.

We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!

If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page.

7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-50

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There are now default short aliases for the "Project:" namespace on most wikis. E.g. On Wikibooks wikis, [[WB:]] will go to the local language default for the [[Project:]] namespace. This change is intended to help the smaller communities have easy access to this feature. Additional local aliases can still be requested via the usual process. [10]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 December. It will be on all wikis from 16 December (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Claremont Park

On 15 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Claremont Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the black swamp in Claremont Park was believed to be inhabited by evil spirits and was known to have consumed cattle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Claremont Park. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Claremont Park), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour

FYI, the talk page for Feed the Machine Tour has not yet been updated. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that I closed an AfD related to this page, but that was 4 years ago. What specifically is missing that I was supposed to do? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:የኢትዮጵያ ፌዴራላዊ ዴሞክራሲያዊ ሪፐብሊክ

See Italo-Ethiopian War of 1887–1889. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please file a SPI, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-51

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

  • Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 10 January 2022.

Recent changes

  • Queries made by the DynamicPageList extension (<DynamicPageList>) are now only allowed to run for 10 seconds and error if they take longer. This is in response to multiple outages where long-running queries caused an outage on all wikis. [11]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week or next week.

Future changes

  • The developers of the Wikipedia iOS app are looking for testers who edit in multiple languages. You can read more and let them know if you are interested.
  • Advanced item The Wikimedia Cloud VPS hosts technical projects for the Wikimedia movement. Developers need to claim projects they use. This is because old and unused projects are removed once a year. Unclaimed projects can be shut down from February. [12]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Too early

I'm wondering if you closed this too early? VR talk 05:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't remember the details of that case, but looking at it now, has only ever made a single edit. It's really hard to call somebody a sock based on one edit, but should they become more active, please open another SPI report. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And it goes on՜ and on, bound to forever

Good morning/evening RoySmith, happy holidays and I hope you're doing well. I just noticed you closed this SPI investigation and I had some things to point out if you don't mind (and new revelations). I think the evidence was strong, given the very obvious similarities, niche articles, timings and so on. But you have a lot more experience, so I wholeheartedly trust your judgment. Please allow me to point out some new revelations (I can't in the SPI as it's closed now).

While I was editing today, I noticed the same range IP, 89.219.166.223 (talk · contribs), pop up in a brand new created article (just 6 days ago), Azerbaijani reconstruction of Karabakh, here's the diff 14:28, 21 December 2021. Not going to lie, I found it extremely odd how supposed new IP yet again is familiar with such niche article that hasn't even been up for a week. I decided to check the only available interwiki version of that article, Böyük Qayıdış, which not surprisingly happens to be in az-wiki. And sure enough, Solavirum happens to be the az-wiki version creator, and did 3 edits in the same timeframe as IP: 14:29, 21 December 2021 / 14:30, 21 December 2021 / 14:31, 21 December 2021. The same timings, the random knowledge of IP about this newly created article that doesn't even have a week age, Solavirum being the creator of it in az-wiki and doing edits literally minutes apart from IP, and given all the previous similarities I pointed out in the SPI investigation, do you still think that this is just coincidence? I can invite the previous admin El C (if they don't mind), who tbanned Solavirum, and they can attest that Solavirum indeed had difficulties abstaining from AA, and was blocked for tban violations multiple times. All of these are just too many similarities with the IP, and I believe my assessment that this may just be a WP:DUCK case stands correct. What do you think, maybe I'm missing something? Would be glad to hear your thoughts. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. My suggestion would be to be patient and continue to gather evidence. When you've got a stronger case, file a new SPI report. I know it's kind of frustrating, but matching up IPs with socks is not always easy. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amfithea/Archive#07_May_2021

Hi, I'd just like to note that 195.191.67.225 is a IP used in Swiss Cottage Library, and 82.1.219.198 is a London Borough of Westminster Library (St John's Wood I think?). Whilst they should be blocked, might be best to change the blocks' warning to {{Public Wi-Fi block}} (if possible) as to not confuse people; it seems a few people have been confused when this message pops up. Fwiw at least now you know Amfithea is using libraries to bypass IP blocks. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. I'll look into it. Thanks for the note. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Nikita

BukharaEditor 84.54.76.127 (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you forget to?

In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soumyadeep176 you blocked User:Kibrea 02 but left the master unblocked. The master does have a partial block from four articles, but can edit elsewhere. Pikavoom (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll respond on the SPI. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Old sockmaster

Hi RoySmith! I have a small question: There is an editor who based on a particular mix of fields of interests awfully looks like a sockmaster whose last confirmed sock was blocked in 2013. I'm still collecting behavioral evidence to be 100% sure before filing an SPI (which is why I deliberately do not link yet to any presently active editor). What I'm curious about is, can CheckUser also be used after such a long time gap, or do we have to fully rely on behavioral evidence only? –Austronesier (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There's three possible data sources available to checkusers. The best is the CU tool itself, which as you probably know, only has data going back 90 days. In addition to that, there are logs of CU queries which are kept forever, and you can get some hints about what IP addresses were involved. But it's only the IP addresses (no browser information) and even that is sometimes hard to correlate. And finally, there's the cuwiki, where CUs keep free-form notes on cases, but that's hit-or-miss. Some cases have extensive notes. Most cases have nothing.
Beyond that, just the passage of time is a problem. Even if I had complete logs for an account going back to the beginning of time, nothing from 8 years ago is likely to be the same anymore. People switch browsers, buy new devices, get new IP addresses, change data carriers, move to different parts of the world, etc. For accounts that old, behavioral evidence is actually more useful.
I hope that answers your question. My suggestion would be to not worry about the CU data, just lay out whatever you've got and we'll take it from there as best we can. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this information! I'll try to get behavioral evidence watertight. The overlapping and rather unique combination of edit ranges is pretty clear, now I will concentrate on "stylistic" evidence. And btw, there's a brandnew WorldCreaterFighter account[13] which just popped up in Negritos on my watchlist, quacking with a 1000 Megawatt amplifier. SPI to follow *sigh*. –Austronesier (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
A lovely pie it is! And we have got a season's gift (probably not intended as one, but anyway): RobertoY20 is unstale! I'll write something up later, if necessary. Wish you a wonderful Christmas! –Austronesier (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Symphyotrichum award

The Symphyotrichum Award
For your GA review of Symphyotrichum novae-angliae! I appreciate the time you spent and your helpful comments and corrections. Much thanks! Eewilson (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser statistics

Dear RoySmith,

You've done an invaluable service for us all at SPI, and I'm sorry to bother you with this question on a holiday. But it's been bugging me for a while, and no one seems to know the answer to it:


Are there any formally compiled statistics available on the number of SPI cases that are filed, yearly?

I haven't been able to find anything on Wikipedia. I've searched the web but could only find secondary sources that give uncited figures for certain years. For example, a quote from Case Study of Sockpuppet Detection on Wikipedia":

"Sockpuppets are a prevalent problem in Wikipedia, there were close to 2,700 unique suspected cases reported in 2012. "

This is helpful, but I can't find any facts on the number of sockpuppets investigated/confirmed for 2014, 2018, or 2020, etc.

Are these facts even formally collected and disseminated? If so I would greatly appreciate knowing where to find them.


Thanks for your time. By the way, I am aware of this SPI archive, but it dates back to the 2000s and seems inactive, and not very quantitative. To clarify, I'm looking for more recent figures, rather than a list of cases. Hunan201p (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. No problem with bothering me. I'm working on an apple-peach pie for a Christmas Eve dinner I've been invited to. I've cooked the filling, but I need to wait for that to cool before I can do the next step, so this is a good time to get some sock hunting in :-)
Anyway, no, I'm not aware of anyplace we keep such statistics. You should ask at WT:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Anybody who has the institutional memory to know if such a thing exists is likely to be watching that page. If nobody can point to an existing set, ping me. It shouldn't be very difficult to me to whip up some kind of script or database query to figure it out, and I'd be happy to help. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you so much for this helpful, delightful, and timely response, RoySmith. It's exactly what I needed. If talk page discussions were edible, this one would taste like apple-peach pie on Christmas Eve. Happy New Years and I hope your dinner party realizes what good company they have! Hunan201p (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Please enjoy a slice. But a small one, I need to save the rest for after dinner. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, I can't believe I missed that!!! That thing is GORGEOUS. It looks to be about as sweet as your contributions to the Wiki. Thanks again for all your help and for lifting my spirits on a dreary day. Your cookies are in the same spot as always. Hunan201p (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith/Archive_43&oldid=1065751874"