User talk:Spicy/Archive 4

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - January 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Your Input!
Hi Spicy, Could you please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mary_Francine_Whittle which has been suggested for deletion? I would appreciate your input. Thanks! T. E. Meeks (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the message, but asking specific users to comment on a deletion nomination isn't the best idea. Even if it's not your intention, this could seen as trying to stack the results in your favour (see Canvassing). I'd be hesitant to comment now because of the appearance of impropriety. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize this, Spicy. Is there another way I can advocate for the article? T. E. Meeks (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * posting a neutral message on a WikiProject such as Women in Red or WikiProject Composers is generally considered acceptable - but I would try not to view it as "advocating for the article", rather as soliciting opinions from a wider group of people, some of whom might disagree. Spicy (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. T. E. Meeks (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - February 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you :) Spicy (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Request on 11:54:43, 12 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ansgrayson
Less of a request, and more of a review - but didn't know the best place to write one. Just wanted to thank Spicy for a structured review that actually gave helpful advice for improving a Wikipedia entry to meet submission requirements - some of my past experiences with editors had left me pretty frustrated with the platform, but actually getting proper feedback and support was a breath of fresh air, so thank you!

Ansgrayson (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

RD1
I declined your RD1 request at Draft:J. O. Frye House and reverted your removal. I'll be happy to reinstate if I'm incorrect. However, as noted at:

Disclaimer

"Thus, material created by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is generally considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by applicable law."

It's my opinion that it's poor form to simply copy and paste large chunks from the NPS site. Use of selected excerpts, properly identified as quotes does make sense. In either case, proper attribution is required which doesn't exist in the draft.

I think the draft has a lot of problems but copyright violation is not the issue, Unless you think I missed something.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for following up. I did see the copyright information on the NPS site, but my thinking was that the nomination statement was not written by a NPS employee, and therefore wouldn't be in the public domain. It's my understanding that the nomination statements are usually written by private individuals - see National Register of Historic Places. I'm not entirely sure I'm correct on this, however so I would appreciate your insight. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , You make an interesting point; that's part of the reason I didn't write as if I was absolutely certain about it. While I've done a fair bit of work with NRHP pages, others have more expertise. in particular, has done as much or more than anyone. He typically includes excerpts from the write up but not the whole write up, and I think has been involved in discussions about how much can be used. I hope he will weigh in.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, received ping, happy to help. I don't see a link above or in the Draft:J. O. Frye House article to any document in question, but I suppose it is the following (which I found by other searching, which is what I would put in as reference in that article enclosed by ):  With .  The authors names and date of preparation appear in its Section 11.  It was written by Charles F. Pritchard and Allen T. Denison, and there is no indication those are Federal employees, it is almost certain they are not, and it is NOT in the public domain.
 * Before finding that, I already presumed what is in question is a National Register of Historic Places "Registration" or "Inventory-Nomination" document that is published on the NPS website. These are almost always NOT in the public domain, with the exception being rare documents of that type (including a number in the earliest years of the NRHP and National Historic Landmarks programs) which can be shown to have beeen written by Federal employees.  The majority are written by private parties, sometimes working for owners of properties, or by local or state government staff.  All of those are NOT in the public domain.  Please note the quote above is about "material created by the NPS", which could include works written by NPS employees, but these documents are usually not that.  The "Disclaimer" linked above goes on to state clearly:"Not all information or content on this website has been created or is owned by the NPS. Some content is protected by third party rights, such as copyright, trademark, rights of publicity, privacy, and contractual restrictions."
 * So, I gather that text Draft:J. O. Frye House is copied from there. As currently presented, the words appear to a reader to be written in Wikipedia's collective voice, because the wording is not in quotes and credited to the actual authors, so that constitutes plagiarism (giving less credit than is due to original authors for their ideas and/or wording).  It also constitutes copyright violation, because the  text's copyright is owned by those authors unless they have assigned authorship over to some other entity.
 * Maybe that's all that's needed here, but let me add more context: It is not at all the worst kind of commercial copyright violation;  it is conceivable that the authors and even local and state government officials might themselves believe it is in the public domain, they might have thought they were putting it into the public domain (I recall that happening apparently with State of Maryland officials, regarding a series of webpages they created about NRHP-listed places in the state).  It is unlikely Wikipedia would be sued and have to pay damages or anything for the copyright violation.  But Wikipedia cannot accept either the plagiarism or the copyright violation.  In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer but I am informed about copyright violation law cases up to the U.S. Supreme Court I think, the NRHP document text is sort of close to public... and longish quotes from it (credited properly) are more okay than longish quotes from other sources would be.  It is highly appropriate for Wikipedia editors to quote from NRHP documents in presenting why the NRHP document authors felt the places were significant and worthy of NRHP recognition.  Also it is appropriate to quote any weird/strange assertions which might not be true, to provide some distancing (e.g. state "the NRHP author asserted 'this is the first 2-story house ever built in the state' but there exist several earlier ones X and Y and Z").  Also it is appropriate to quote really well-written wording that should be celebrated.  Regular, plainly presented material in an NRHP document should be summarized in your own words.  Easiest/best to do by process of looking what document says (and not copy-pasting it) but rather looking away and writing from scratch... you will find you can then put it in your own words.  Copy-pasting then editing somewhat usually does not get past the sin of what is called "too close paraphrasing" (see Close paraphrasing).
 * Currently the draft article shows no sources at all, so it is pretty much a joke to be considering it for publication in mainspace, setting aside the plagiarism and copyvio.
 * Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well, it's pretty clear writing the right editor. I felt it wasn't working as an article but I initially, and mistakenly thought that the property write ups became the property of the federal government and therefore public domain (I think it's even conceivable that the ownership rights and copyrights can reside in different people — I once bought an original cartoon with the intention of reusing it and found that I owned the piece of paper with the character that I did not only copyright). I will reinstate the RD1.
 * Thanks DonCram S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, User:Sphilbrick. Some further context:  part of the problem is that the National Park Service sees merit in requiring applicants for NRHP listing to provide release for the NPS to post the documents in the NPS webpages.  But unlike Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, the NPS does not particularly know or care about or want to put material into free software movement"-type free usage by others, by later potential re-users, even for commercial purposes.  I have come to understand that copyright issues for Wikipedia and Commons are more about protecting "innocent" re-users who might trust that a Wikipedia-published text passage and/or a Commons-published photo can be used in their for-profit new book about "Things to do in My Town", only to find themselves sued, and their publication blocked, when it turns out some person in My Town who authored text or photos was violated by the inappropriate use of their material in Wikipedia.  This can be devastating to an individual.  While the Wikimedia Foundation is simply not going to be hurt at all, likely would not be sued at all because there is no clear way Wikimedia was profiting, and anyhow has massive funding to fight and extremely strong legal defenses that they tried their best to keep copyrighted material out of Wikipedia, etc.  The NPS doesn't give a whit about what befalls some ignorant person who re-uses what the NPS publishes under their "okay just for NPS" permission.  The NPS easily could ask NRHP applicants to release their text and photos under CC-BY-SA or other free-type license that would allow for re-use elsewhere, and most applicants would be perfectly fine with that, but that has not been done. --Doncram (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , It might be that they don't care, but another distinct possibility is that they aren't aware that different licensing might make a difference. Presumably they are interested in educating the public about these important historical locations, and might understand that Wikipedia is formally likely to be a place where someone will find something. While they've done a lot of work putting together a decent website, members of the public might not be stumbling upon the NPS website and perusing it. Perhaps we could explain to them that if they are going to get property write ups and require some permission agreements, that it would not be hard to make sure those permission agreements are consistent with Wikipedia use. That would permit us to expand the discussion of various properties beyond the limited excerpts permissible under fair use. I would not think that we should simply be reproducing everything in the documentation, but it would be nice to know that we could use larger portions without running into copyright problems.
 * Any interest in working together? If you're willing to track down some senior person in the NPS universe, I'll be happy to put together a letter to that person explaining how a change in their licensing procedure would be mutually beneficial. I don't know whether it's something that can be done retroactively (potentially yes if the original copyright holders did sign over rights to NPS), but at least going forward.
 * Or vice versa. If you'd rather work on writing up appropriate letter, I'll see if I can track down the right contact person. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Or vice versa. If you'd rather work on writing up appropriate letter, I'll see if I can track down the right contact person. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Or vice versa. If you'd rather work on writing up appropriate letter, I'll see if I can track down the right contact person. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Replying at User talk:Sphilbrick. --Doncram (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
 * Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
 * 🇷🇼 Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
 * 🇺🇸 Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - March 2021
Ajpolino (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, apologies for the random message. I just wanted to say thank you for filing this report. Seeing their rapid mass-creations it did occur to me that they could be a blocked user, but I couldn't put my finger on the master and didn't file any report. Hope you have a great week. -- Ashley yoursmile!  06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - April 2021
Ajpolino (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

FAC mentor?
Hello Spicy. I saw you recently accomplished this: Featured article candidates/Complete blood count/archive1. Congratulations and thank you for your contributions! I'm also trying to get my first FA with DVT as evidenced by Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive4. I'm currently also a medical student, so I unfortunately I don't much time to volunteer and engage with other reviews, FACs, etc., which is the recommended step #1 here. Step #2 suggests I obtain a FAC mentor. Would you be interested in serving in this role? I have started to identify subject matter experts through my university (step #3). Thank you for your time and consideration. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for reaching out but I've been pretty busy lately and I'm not sure I have the experience to be an effective mentor anyway. I see you've already been talking to SandyGeorgia, which is good... , and  might also be interested. I'll take a look at the peer review when I have time. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reply and your suggestions. Along that same vein, and more in line with the guidance provided by SandyGeorgia's essay, I do see User:Casliber listed at WP:FAM. Casliber, would you please take a look at my pitch to Spicy above? Might you be interested in serving in this role? Thank you for your time and consideration! Kind regards. Biosthmors (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure - will take a look (a bit busy but will see what I can do) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, but I've got two FAC nominations. One of them was shared with Sandy who is of course hugely experienced. My other nomination was over 10 years ago! I see the advice says "[mentors] will not necessarily have subject expertise, and will not be expected to vouch for an article's technical accuracy" so I think here that lots of recent experience with the FAC process and how picky or otherwise the reviewers tend to be will be useful. You can also get experience by participating as a reviewer, and reading review comments. -- Colin°Talk 09:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I am so very sorry because I have a professional interest in DVT and should really seize this as an opportunity to get myself some CME, but my timetable is too haphazard to do justice to the FA attempt. The earliest I am going to be any use is the third week of June. JFW &#124; T@lk  12:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update JFW, and no worries. For what it's worth, I would guess that the peer review will still be open at that time. I look forward to seeing your comments in about a month or so if possible. Spicy, thank you very much for documenting your thoughts so far! I'm currently getting over an illness, and I hope to have all those comments addressed in the next week. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the comments Spicy! I look forward to addressing them all, but now I'm behind with school and that's ramping up so it might be until mid- to late-June until I can breathe and devote the necessary time and focus. I had a discussion today with someone from my university about one section of the article, so I have actionable feedback on that as well. I wanted to express my appreciation in the interim. I don't want you to think I didn't find your comments helpful just because I'm not jumping all over them immediately. And thank you also Cas Liber for your comments as well! I'll get to all of them. They all look great. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - June 2021
Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for John Mervin Nooth
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - July 2021
Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

While we're on the topic of AML...
Hi Spicy, hope you're travelling well. How would you feel having a look at two templates with me: Template:Lymphoid malignancy and Template:Myeloid malignancy? My feeling is both templates are extremely difficult to navigate for both lay and non lay readers and I'd like to try and simplify their crazy categorisation system as much as possible. Seeing as you've just put the categorisation system in I thought you might be the person with the most confidence assessing whether the templates are arranged in a logical manner or not. What do you think? Tom (LT) (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are not very intuitive. I'll see what I can do, but no guarantees I can come up with something less confusing. Spicy (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You can see the start of a navbox based on the WHO classification at User:Spicy/sandbox... but I am not convinced this will turn out any better than what we currently have. You can see the full classification at . There are two main problems. First of all, the WHO classification includes many items such as "Myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRA, PDGFRB, or FGFR1, or with PCM1-JAK2" which we do not have articles on and most likely never will since no one except hemato-oncologists would be interested in them. Second, there are many items not included in the WHO classification which we do have articles on, and it is probably impossible to accommodate all of thse these elegantly. Basically, I am not sure it's possible for these navboxes to be any less of a mess than they are now. But maybe you'll have better ideas than I do. Spicy (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - August 2021
Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Request on 15:54:59, 11 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Lifteveryvoice
Please explain why the history of black and Asian Americans from mention as I create a page for the first candidate of Asian descent to run for mayor of America's second most segregated city is not relevant?

There are other children of Civil Rights Leaders on Wikipedia who have done way less than this woman.

Lifteveryvoice (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You should refer to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines repeatedly explained to you by the draft reviewers. Spicy (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sock?
Hi Spicy. I wanted to point out that a new editor has advanced edits on Daniel W. Nebert similar to those of the prior sock farm discussed at Sockpuppet investigations/125BOP. It is possible that the same outfit is at it again? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , it certainly looks possible, I'd recommend filing the account at SPI and requesting CU. Spicy (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - September 2021
Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - September 2021
Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Pagemover granted
Hello, Spicy. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ASpicy granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! GeneralNotability (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this will come in handy the next time I make a stupid mistake : ) Spicy (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

As per MickeyViolet sock
Looking at Sockpuppet_investigations/MickeyViolet a new player has emerged with the same SPA and odd behaviour as those now banned, again edit-warring as before. I think this is a sleeper brought in to renew the battle. Ten years inactive and suddenly taking up yesterday's fight, and it's just another day at the office? --Pete (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Later. I've created a new case Sockpuppet_investigations/Nickb410. I'm not full bottle on procedure but I figure by ringing the bell someone will take notice. --Pete (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up, I merged your report with the currently open case. I might leave this new account for someone with fresh eyes - it's all a little exhausting. On a side note, I removed part of one of your comments on the SPI - you simply can't say things like that here, even if it seems obvious. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A question
I'm using Patriciamoorehead as a villain in the seventh Wikipedia movie. I looked at her user page to make sure I got her name right, and it turns out she was actually a sockpuppet of Sportstir. How did you figure out Sportstir was behind the account? Minkai (rawr! )(see where I screwed up) 11:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , what exactly do you mean by "I'm using Patriciamoorehead as a villain in the seventh Wikipedia movie"? This does not sound like a very useful or appropriate thing to do. Spicy (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, nobody objected when A ding ding ding... or Willy on Wheels were used as villains in the previous Wikipedia movies, and her appearance in the seventh Wikipedia movie will spread awareness about her. Minkai (rawr! )(see where I screwed up) 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the template Template:Wikipedia humor so no one gets the wrong idea. It was intended as entertainment, not a personal attack. Minkai (rawr! )(see where I screwed up) 12:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see that you've mentioned here that this is part of the Happy Tree Friends Cabal –  the cabal is mentioned there ironically, and people shouldn't really use their userspace for those sorts of things. What you're doing with your userspace currently does not seem useful to the encyclopedia, so please consider taking it elsewhere. (And as I side note I would discourage writing about sockmasters in general per WP:DENY). Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 12:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Pattern of concern
Writing you because we've interacted around socks a couple of times. I'm noticing new accounts and. They're both new editors that are adding lots of low-quality infoboxes on a bunch of articles. They overlapped editing on Bacurius the Iberian. Anyway, looks like UPE. I haven't seen this exact pattern before. I'm not sure whether any action is called for at the moment, but I thought it was worth telling someone about. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree that looks sketchy, and I found another one (who is blocked). I've filed it at SPI. Thanks for the heads up. Spicy (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * and found even more.  Yikes! Spicy (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yikes, indeed -- that's quite the editing farm! Glad to be of some small help. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Russ Woodroofe: ...and another 20 or so since you left this comment – it's quite the rabbit hole, but definitely one of the more interesting ones I've seen. That was a good spot, thank you for reporting. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JRM2018
‏This account (user:Miladtayan) socks user account (user:AriaTess) The reason for this is the user editing after the main account is blocked, and the most interesting of all is this editing User for Reza Goodari has made several edits in different wikis. According to this article, this person is completely promotional and seems to have been paid to create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:5EC0:B005:83A0:85FC:63F8:6BE2:EF8F (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I need your help
Hey Spicy

Sir Sputnik hasn’t responded to his talk page in days, as you are invited to his talk page to discuss the problem. The accounts could be possibly ran by this sockmaster or not. Please check the IP where did those new accounts originate. -184.146.39.97 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Spicy isn’t a CheckUser or administrator. The talk page linked has had a response to your section (3 days ago) requesting more information. Please reply with it there and don’t spam multiple talk pages of random editors. TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

First SPI filed as an admin
So may I indef block those two accounts myself or should I await another admin? I want to clean up my own messes when possible. When we're done I'd appreciate any feedback on my filing or conduct in this case. BusterD (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're certainly allowed to block the accounts yourself. Regarding the filing, one thing to remember is that cases should always be filed under the oldest account, and if the case involves named accounts and IPs, it shouldn't be filed under an IP. Otherwise, the filing was good. :) Spicy (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ...seems someone beat you to the blocks while I was typing this, though. :p Spicy (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even better. I missed the instruction to file under the first named account. I likely looked right at it but it didn't register. I've filed before, but never as an admin so I wanted to dot my t's and cross my i's. Thanks for your clerking. BusterD (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny Associate Professor Hanyang University If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

spi helper question
Hey Spicy, is there a way to do complex tags with spi helper, or must one do it by hand? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * to tag socks with an altmaster, you select the relationship to the primary master from the "Tag" dropdown and the relationship to the altmaster from the "Altmaster" dropdown. It'll then prompt you to enter the name of the primary master and the altmaster, in that order. Double-tagging the master and their socks at the same time is more complicated, and I think explained how to do it to me once, but I frankly found it incredibly confusing so I just do it manually. Maybe he'll have an explanation for you... :)  Spicy (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, it works by selecting "CU-confirmed master" and "suspected sockpuppet" in the alt column and then saying yes to the prompts; I don't do this often though, so there's a decent chance I'm misremembering. Either way, the script adds the tag with the suspected instead of the blocked parameter by default, so it has to be tweaked anyway -- double-tagging the master manually is usually easiest. Also, keep in mind that "altmaster" always refers to the master with the lower confidence level (almost always because you have a confirmed sock group that you suspect traces back to an older account), and that weird things can happen when you do it the other way around. Oh, the marvels of sock tags... --Blablubbs (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You both have convinced me: I'm not going to bother with complex tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Hello Spicy: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  00:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

TFA nomination for Chagas disease
I have nominated Chagas disease to appear as today's featured article for an unspecified date. I wanted to let you know because you worked to bring this article back to FA standards at its WP:FAR. Please click here if you would like to join the discussion. Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

RawMarketer7
Noticed RawMarketer7 at this SPI, just thought I'd note for future reference that they are a sock of Sockpuppet investigations/Hablus / d:Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hardik1430. I haven't seen an enwiki account for them since September, would it be helpful to tag in case CU is needed later? Pahunkat (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know. I'll wait for the CU results on Wikidata before tagging. Spicy (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI confirmed to the WD sock master. Pahunkat (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yannis Assael
Hi Spicy. Would you take a look at the situation around the Yannis Assael article and deletion discussion? Brief summary: A year ago SPA created the article. Recently near-SPA has recreated a (I believe very similar) article. There is some interaction at the AfD. Something does not feel quite right to me, but I am not certain whether it is a good case for SPI or not. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the two versions of the articles are effectively identical, as far as I can tell. I would say it's worth filing at SPI. Spicy (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I suspect that the AfD will end in deletion anyway (well, unless better sources are uncovered).  I see enough signs of WP:UPE, however, that it looked worthwhile to file, in case it connects to other cases. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

SPI - reopen or new?
Thanks for your help at Sockpuppet investigations/Sauraved. I was in the middle of adding a second suspect to the report of 24c.56.43c when you marked the report as closed. It really is whac-a-mole, as another editor commented. Should I open a separate SPI, or is it feasible to reopen the most recent one? --Worldbruce (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - I just converted your addition to a new filing. You can generally add new accounts to an existing filing as long as the case hasn't been actioned or checked yet, but if it has, you're better off starting another filing. Hope this helps. Spicy (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Lam312321321
Hello. I appreciate your addition to the SPI, but can you add a comment to clarify why you added the second name? It looks like I've reported two people but only given a reason for why one of them is a sock, otherwise. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah! You were in the process of doing that. Cheers. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing SPI archive tag?
Hey! Is there supposed to be a link from Sockpuppet investigations/MrStephenLeon to Sockpuppet investigations/Chickenbrain897? Something like ? — MarkH21talk 05:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Heh, I just came here for the same reason. I think in Special:Diff/1074930812, you meant to move the whole case, not just the case section. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did intend to merge the case section since the two filings have overlapping histories. It looks like the script didn't update the archivenotice on the source page, though. Thanks for catching that. Spicy (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

YGM
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

TFA
Chagas disease is featured today, and it looks like you did a lot to rescue its status, - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, and thanks for all your work at SPI too. Spicy (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

SPI case
Hello Spicy! Just wanted to apologize for the redundant SPI case I opened a few days ago. I actually opened it a few minutes before the other one that was opened the same day, but I'll be sure to research that a little further next time. Thanks and cheers! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 22:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's fine, these things happen. It's why clerks exist. :) Spicy (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Question
Thank you for handling sock puppetry on Wikipedia! I saw that you closed my case because both users are blocked. Is it possible to reopen the case when the IP is unblocked? (Their block is 31 hours). Thanks! Signed, Dinosaur  TrexXX33 (chat?) 12:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * we generally don't block IPs any longer than that for a first instance of generic vandalism. A short block is usually enough to deter them. Obvious vandalism is handled more quickly at AIV than at SPI anyway - I suggest you have a read of User:Blablubbs/How_to_file_a_good_SPI. Spicy (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Where do I request SPI for Wikiquote?
You closed my CU request at en-wiki, because it was in the wrong place. I heard there is a way to ask Stewards for help with small Wikis that have no checkuser admins, but I can't find it. This sockmaster is a plague at Wikiquote, so I hope you can help. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , you can request CU for projects without local checkusers at Steward requests/Checkuser, but CUs will not connect accounts to IPs. I'm not sure what other processes Wikiquote has for dealing with sockpuppetry. Spicy (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)