User talk:RoySmith

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Roy,

I was looking at a template deletion discussion and wanted to see what pages the template was used on and came across your user page. The article this page was based on was just deleted in a AFD deletion discussion. Not sure if this impacts whether or not you want it in your user space but thought I'd let you know. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Liz, That was for help in debugging T248796, but no, it's not of any use anymore. I'll delete it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


Hi RoySmith, regarding this SPI, some of the accounts reported earlier are now old enough that they are autoconfirmed and being reactivated to bypass semi. If you don't have time to deal with the more complicated cases, it would be appreciated if you could nonetheless block the obvious ones. Best, CMD (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, Ugh. Yeah, I've been kind of busy lately, but I'll take a look. Thanks for the ping. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, Oh, yeah, ugh for sure. I'm probably not going to be able to make much headway there, but if you could compile a list of pages that would most benefit from WP:ECP, that I could probably do quickly. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a long report at the moment. If I might make a suggestion, it could help to start with the 09 May 2021 report and work backwards, as most of those are obvious attack or one-off accounts (added to since 9 May, but all obvious ones, and some are already blocked).
On protection, semi would be useful on Asbestos, Singapore Airlines, City-state, Singapore model. The two currently semied articles are Politics of the Philippines (purely for harassment against me) and Singapore passport (standard area of focus), and I suspect blocks would work fine, but both are also reasonably low traffic with not many editors or IPs so ECP probably wouldn't affect them too much if you prefer. (edit: Also my talkpage, but please don't ECP that.) CMD (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, I put ECP on those first four. I'll try to find some time to work through some of the SPI (but can't promise anything there). -- RoySmith (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(@Blablubbs:) Regarding the 08 May 2021 case close (Commenting here since it was marked closed), I disagree with not blocking the "burner" accounts. There's a long history of sleepers here, and some "burner" accounts have been reactivated literally within the past couple of days to avoid semi, so they are clearly being kept track of. Not blocking makes the aggressive protection idea much less useful. CMD (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, I understand your frustration here, but SPI is badly backed up and we just don't have the time to give every case the attention it deserves. We're doing the best we can.
When we ask filers to give us more information or diffs, it's not that we're pushing back, it's that you know stuff that we don't and we're just trying to discover what it is. For example, when you wrote, Even if there wasn't an IP, there's some clear aspects of those edits which catch my attention, that really doesn't advance the case because you haven't told us what those aspects are. If it's something you'd rather not disclose in public, just note that and offer to mail the details to whoever is investigating the case. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I was referring above to the 08 May 2021 section, not the 02 April 2021 one. Happy to provide more 08 May 2021 diffs, or further explain the aspects relating to 02 April 2021 if that would help. CMD (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, The more information you can provide, the easier it is to make progress. And the best information is pairs of specific diffs. As another example, in 13 April, you wrote, Mindandaeno's only edit is to restore previous LTA. Look at that from the point of view of a clerk working the case. You haven't identified the specific edit that was being restored. You haven't even identified which sock made the edit. So, the clerk needs to go hunting to find it. You already have that information. You obviously have found some previous edit which was restored. So just put the link to the diff in the SPI report. That makes the clerk's job trivial. If the clerk has to go hunting to rediscover the information that you've already found but haven't shared, well, that's how SPI gets backed up so badly. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Noted, I'll take another look through the various reports in a bit. I think that at the time I was trying to keep a record of the sudden proliferation of socks, so the per-sock report quality dropped. CMD (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Now done, including for 08 May 2021, which I hope you will be able to take another look at even though it was technically closed. I tried to make it very clear what the relationship of each account was to previous ones, and/or mention various behavioural details. (I even uncovered a previously missed account, although I didn't detail it.) I hope I am not sounding ungrateful for the work you have done, or sounding too frustrated. I appreciate very much the backlog, and only brought it up here because some of the accounts had gotten autoconfirmed and re-activated. I hope that what I've written now can make the remaining assessments very easy, and I expanded on a report by another user too which should make that one even clearer. Let me know again if there is more i could help with. CMD (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, I've worked my way through the INTSF backlog. Thank you for providing the specific diffs, that made it easy. If any of the accounts left unblocked start being disruptive again, please open a new report, and as always, it's going to be specific diff pairs that will make it possible for a clerk to make any progress.
Given the extensive use of proxies and volume of new accounts, page protection will almost certainly be a better tool than blocking in this case, not to mention that WP:RFPP is always faster to respond than SPI. Given the history here, my recommendation would be to ask for ECP of at least 6 months right off the bat, and refer to the SPI and/or this note if the RFPP folks are hesitant to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, this is noted. I'll try it now. How do I provide diffs for harassment accounts though? Diff my edit and their revert or something? I find it a bit odd they were the ones left unblocked, it feels they'd be the most obvious to determine. CMD (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, I remember looking at those and not being clear on why it was harrassment. So, basically you need to walk the clerk through it. "I did this edit, then the sock reverted it here, and then I did..., and the sock did...". Keep in mind that by the time you file an SPI report, you're much more familiar with the case than the processing clerk is. The clerk knows the procedures, and is authorized to perform certain actions, but you're the one who knows the history. And given how badly backed up SPI is, when a clerk is faced with a difficult or complex case, they're likely to just move onto a simpler case. So it's in your best interest to make it as simple for them as possible. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Walter Gladwin[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 7 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Walter Gladwin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Walter Gladwin was the first black New York state assemblyman from the Bronx? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Walter Gladwin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Walter Gladwin), 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) 12:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-23[edit]

20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


Please undo your close at AN, I was in the process of a formal proposal and I hardly think that conversation is done. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, The guy says he's retired. I don't honestly see how dragging this out will be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
People often retire to escape sanctions and the conversation was far from over. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Praxidicae, I really can't see how anything useful will come of reopening the thread. If he stays retired, the problem is solved. If he comes back and starts being disruptive again, we can deal with it then. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added AshleyyoursmileLess Unless
removed HusondMattWadeMJCdetroitCariocaVague RantKingboykThunderboltzGwen GaleAniMateSlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

An IP you range blocked recently[edit]

Greetings RoySmith. An IP you range blocked recently,, is actually not a proxy. It's a dynamic range of one of the main telecommunications providers of Singapore. That would mean there's potentially up to ten of thousands of unique users on that IP range within any given time, and some might be enthusiastic users of Wikipedia unrelated as being a sockpuppet. As we can see, the last time this IP was blocked for only a month, there were three occasions (1, 2 and 3) where innocent individuals were caught by the block, and couldn't edit as a result. I also don't think ineedotstopforgetting would even use this IP range as they are probably smarter than that, especially considering that they are not a new investigation and that this would cause instant detection.

My point is that we shouldn't be quick to assume and associate every edit related to Singapore as being the doing of ineedtostopforgetting, as this could negatively affect many other potential users from Singapore or the region from editing its WikiProject. For starters, when the IP was re-blocked again just days after the end of its month-long block due to Chipmunkdavis' reporting its possibility of it being a sock for one of the IP's editing on Singapore Airlines, it shouldn't be far fetched that it was probably just the work of a local aviation enthusiast editing the airline from their country, and not a malicious sockpuppet of ineedtostopforgetting. There's probably many more examples but I'm pointing this recent one out as it was the cause of it getting blocked once more. Cheers.

Also no before anyone asks, I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, just an observer that desires anonymity who was previously affected by a similar but unrelated situation. SantiniXER (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

IP user and the current sockpuppet block[edit]

Hello @RoySmith:!, This IP user has been currently adding some pictures again and the same edits of the current blocked sockpuppet account, Philippine 1812, of Cathay Pacific and Cathay Pacific fleet. I don't know what to say but I kinda stress with that IP user or anyone that adds more airline pictures. I mean, it's really not important to add more, but WP:EW it is. What's your opinion about this IP user? Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Cornerstone2.0, Could you please open a new SPI report, that'll make it easier to process. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
PS. the correct case is Mark Maglasang -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: sure thing. Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello there @RoySmith:, It says "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. Disruptive editing may result in a block from editing." What should I do? Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Cornerstone2.0, Hmmm, not sure what you did to get that, but don't sweat it. I can generate the report myself, in a few minutes. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: okay, thank you very much! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This is my first time of reporting a user, so please bear with me. I commented in below (comment by others) with the links of his/her edit. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


I saw your Quarry 55807 at WP:ANI#Review of indefinitely salted article titles & had a go at adding wiki links. My effort Quarry 55915 is not pretty, and could do with some workaround to avoid using UNIONs. Just pointing you there in the hope you're up for further improving it. No worries if not. Cabayi (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi, Thanks, but SQL is really not my strong suit. I putter around with simple queries, but that's about it. I guess what you're doing here is looking up the namespace names, but I'm not following the details and why you need the unions.
I'm still trying to figure out why Quarry 55882 times out. If I leave off the join with change_tag_def, it's fine. Something about that join obviously makes it unable to use an index, but beats me why. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Looking for answers I just stumbled across this :-)
The query needs UNIONs (unless there's a better way) because the links need handling in different ways.
A previous way I was formatting the query (with a leading :w:en:) meant articles were coming out with a leading ::, without that, and looking at it again, articles are OK with a single leading colon. For categories, category:page would attempt to categorise the page rather than link to the category. It needs a distinct way of presenting the pages as wikilinks. Down to two queries, one UNION, hooray!
For Quarry 55882, (from my ever-more-distant memory of how Oracle used to handle queries)
order by rev_id desc
limit 10
it needs to retrieve all the rows for ordering, then it'll discard all but the 10 rows you want, the 10 with the highest rev_id. The ORDER ensures that the LIMIT is meaningless in terms of restricting the processing needed. Cabayi (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

If you restrict the query to the latest 1000 rows of change_tag (assuming ct_rev_id is sequential) rather than its full complement of 145 million rows it works...

SELECT   rv.rev_id, ct.ct_rev_id, cmt.comment_text, ctd.ctd_name
FROM     revision rv, comment cmt, change_tag_def ctd, change_tag ct
WHERE    rv.rev_id > (SELECT max(ct_rev_id) - 1000
                      FROM   change_tag )
AND      rv.rev_comment_id = cmt.comment_id
AND      rv.rev_id = ct.ct_rev_id
AND      ctd.ctd_id = ct.ct_tag_id

-- Cabayi (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi, Ah, yeah, I've run into that before, thanks. See, I told you SQL isn't my strong suit :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
And I've got Quarry 55915 down to a single query :-) Oh happy days! Cabayi (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Cabayi, It's really annoying that there's no namespace table in the database. If only there was some way of embedding the number:name mapping in a way you could parse out the information you needed with string functions... Quarry 55923. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Even better, Quarry 55924 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
A not-clever, brute force version - Quarry 22971.
However, the {{ns:3}} → User talk magic word method has the merit of not being tied to any specific language wiki, and (plus point or minus point, depending on your need) has the wiki software do the work. Cabayi (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Cabayi, See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Quarry_namespace_mapping. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if it helps - but revision_userindex (and logging_userindex) are indexed tables - and will be likely to go much faster than using revision or logging. See: wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Database#Tables_for_revision_or_logging_queries_involving_user_names_and_IDs. I've also always found MusikAnimal's SQL Optimizer super helpful. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 23:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 16: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC[edit]

June 16, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg
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 16:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-24[edit]

20:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Moved to archive[edit]

Hello @RoySmith:! Maybe we can moved to archive of the previous sockpuppet investigation last week of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Maglasang..? Hope someone can moved it. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Cornerstone2.0, It's in the queue to get archived. Somebody will get to it when they have time. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, oh.. well okay then.. I understand that.. thanks for your response! :)) Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #2[edit]

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this newsletter

Junior contributors comment completion rate across all participating Wikipedias
When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

  • Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
  • The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


Hello Roy I wasnt sure how to contact you, U helped delete and old page draft of mine last year, A few weeks back i rewrote it and kept it to a minimal and got as much references to support it, another use suggested making singles and albums into a table which i did, I am wondering is this draft page on the list for reviewing or is it stuck in limbo as i edited the old original one, any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated

Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. Your draft was missing a template that was needed to start the review process. If you go to your draft now, you should see a big blue "Submit the draft for review!" button. Just click that and you should be all set. Note that the queue for reviews is pretty long, it'll probably be a few weeks before somebody gets around to reviewing it. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Julio and Marisol[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Julio and Marisol you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Julio and Marisol[edit]

The article Julio and Marisol you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Julio and Marisol for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)