Wikipedia:Simple talk

(Redirected from Wikipedia:ST)

Gay Yong Hernandez and systematic creation of stubs from IPsEdit

While this wasn't thought to have been an issue of concern back in July 2019, the concern of Gay Yong Hernandez (talk · contribs · count) creating stubs while logged out has surfaced again this year:

Indeed, there is nothing in the rules saying that registered editors cannot edit Wikipedia constructively while logged out, however it has been highlighted that the volume of stub creations by the range 2A02:21B0:644D::/48 is starting to create increased pressure in the patrolling backlog. I have also noticed that the initial revision by the IP is a generic "x is a y in z"-style edit, and that the registered account adds contents in subsequent diffs. See page histories of Gooise Meren, Haarlemmermeer, Heiloo, Bussum for examples.

I am personally am not a fan of mass stub creation (especially when the creation is templated/semi-automated), and am highlighting this for the community's attention. The lack of response by the editor on their talk page is also concerning. In fact, there have been zero edits to User talk, Wikipedia, and Talk namespaces since the account was registered. Chenzw  Talk  06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A case could be made that they switch to the IP to avoid scrutiny which I believe is something that is disallowed by policy. Now whether a strong case could be made for that is a different matter as pretty much everyone knows it is them, although it is hard to track as their IP changes regularly. A case could almost definitely be made that lack of communication when issues have been brought to them is disruptive as well. -Djsasso (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Well I do agree that almost everyone knows the range is them, but tools we use don't and they will still appear when GYH logs out to create the stubs. --Minorax (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on some comments on his talk page that were just left it has me wondering if he is using automation to create the articles which could explain why he wasn't logged in. And then uses the browser to change the pages which would be why he was then logged in. If that is indeed what he is doing it is completely blockable for using automation without a bot approval. -Djsasso (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Chenzw, Can you provide me with the log, of which admin, had granted Gay Yong Hernandez patroller rights? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
While I really appreciate the work Gay Yong Hernandez does (assuming it's not a bot), it is concerning that this could be a bot and not a person editing. I think a block would be the last resort, and I hope we won't need to go there and loose another editor --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: the right was granted in Dec 2019. Chenzw  Talk  10:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is he patrolling his own IP creation, like Briaroaks, Texas which clearly shouldn't be marked as patrolled. This page is close to an A2 as rephrasing the title in some sense. This seems illegit use of patroller rights and seems socking. Worrying IMO. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Well technically if GYH were to create that page using his account instead of the IP, it'll still be automatically marked as patrolled. I think the sysops should consider removing his patroller rights, @Eptalon: ping for comment. --Minorax (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
True, however, this can also be seen as wanting to conceal the IP creation problem. So even if we AGF and then deem the page patrol issue not important, autopatrolled users shouldn't create such pages or rather, can create and tag accordingly etc. Still worrying? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  (change conflict) It's worth pointing out again the major issue that GYH has apparently never edited any talk namespace here, and thus has never communicated with anybody here. Communication is needed. I don't personally think someone who does not communicate should be granted any extra rights. I also can't exactly say that he has demonstrated article creation worthy of the patroller right. It also could be the case that the massive amount of stubs he creates are automated, which might explain why he fixes up his own IP articles. Many of the articles he creates anonymously, particularly the one sentence "PLACE is a commune in the DEPARTMENT department in France" ones that have been made en masse are very poor, and not particularly useful or helpful. It may also be worth looking at the blocks placed on him elsewhere in his CentralAuth.
On the other hand, I will say that he does clean up other's new articles by categorising them accordingly, which is quite helpful. I agree with Thegooduser that a block should be a last resort for this final reason. --IWI (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, considering he apparently operates stub creation bots elsewhere (apparently plwiki), I would say it is very likely these stub creations are made by a bot. This of course, isn't allowed. I would definitely support the removal of the patroller right at this point. It is also certainly blockable to operate such a bot without authorisation. --IWI (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Just noting here that the user has continued to create these stubs as an IP and patrolling and cleaning up even after this discussion as I am writing this. Maybe action should be taken sooner rather than later. --IWI (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, I won't comment on a possible link from IP to user, as I can't do this per policy. As to Gay Yong Hernandez: I tink they only have intermediate language skills in English, and recently their edits focused on fixing texts, finding typos, and similar. Personally, I have always had the opinion, that 'X is a city in Y'-type articles are borderline deletes, even if vommunity consensus is that such articles are notable. And as to me assigning the 'autopatrolled': At that time, their edits looked like they didn't need another look, they were unproblematic. Also, I don't know what the benefit is of me creating an article as IP as opposed to me creating an article as logged in user. --Eptalon (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon: As stated above, it appears that the IP creations are most likely an automated unauthorised bot (he operates a similar bot on another wiki). He then uses his main account to add categories and patrol each creation. There is really no question of whether he is related to the range as all article creations by the range are immediatley edited by Gay Yong Hernandez. In my opinion, patroller should only be assigned to people who demonstrate a good ability of writing a large number of Simple English pages. --IWI (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
ImprovedWikiImprovment So, Technically speaking Gay Yong Hernandez could be blocked now, because of WP:ONESTRIKE? I will try to get in contact with him by leaving him a message, but I doubt it would work --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: Well technically speaking he would have to have been banned on another project. --IWI (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
+ I don't think ONESTRIKE fits them, as this isn't creating pages out of the project language, and if I am not wrong, we need to notify them ONESTRIKE before we can use them, which no one had officially notified them. I will say let's communicate and find a solution out of this, I don't want to see a productive contributor being lost. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

While there is indeed the general impression that there are signs of trouble here, I dislike having to resort to ONESTRIKE as an arguably more convenient way to block and remove an allegedly problematic editor from this wiki. It is also worth noting that our policy page talks about users "who have been banned on other Wikimedia Foundation projects" (emphasis mine), so we should adhere to that. Users who are actively breaking rules on this wiki can be blocked, with or without ONESTRIKE's existence. As a community, we can do better in our efforts to engage editors before resorting to other sanctions (of course, engaging the editor in this case doesn't seem to be going particularly well). Chenzw  Talk  13:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Chenzw, ImprovedWikiImprovment I've left a message on their talkpage, encouraging them to join in --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Here are 64 more stub creations over several hours during two days of this discussion. As dj pointed out up above, active editors here know it is them. However, using the IP somewhat conceals his bot-created stub history here from users of other wikis. It should be clearly visible to admins of other wikis when they start bot editing elsewhere. See no reason to make an exception for GYH for bot (or indistinguishable from bot) edits. --Gotanda (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Another concern I have, is that GYH, when editing, does not make edits all at once, for example, they will make 1 edit at a time on the same page, it may just be their style of editing though, and I am going to AGF that it is --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Seriously what is so wrong of making edits one by one, we do miss it at times to complete a full edit. It's not they are pandering edit counts or whatsoever or to game some sort of status etc, we have wikis (like zhwiki) where rollback needs 1000 edits, so yes, if we have these criterion, splitting edits can be seen as gaming. Not all users can make a page by just 1 edit to be honest. This isn't an AGF issue IMO. It's totally fine for me. (for this particular issue). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Camouflaged Mirage What I meant is, I won't assume that that the account is a bot. I mean I edit like that too sometimes, and I'm sorry, that I didn't word that good enough. I don't mean to attack the user (GYH). Like, I mentioned, that may just be how they edit, and that's fine. It's only concerning if it's a bot making those edits, but I will assume it's not a bot. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thegooduser No worries. I am also a little heated there.   To be honest, if they run bots using IpV6 we can't do much either, the address will skip and then we have to block a range which is clearly hard here given the range they use can be used by other users. What is worrying to me is they having the patroller rights (which they aren't creating autopatrol eligible pages always - one example I given above). In addition, the lack of communication and engagement to the community is worrying. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Using IPv6 isn't an issue as issuing /64 blocks on them is considered the equivalent of blocking a single IPv4 IP in that it is done all the time. -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
What I am concerned is the possible collateral? As the bot will not end soon, I am afraid a long block might have some collateral as we typical indef unauthorized bots but with IP, indefs are very rare. That's my concerns of ipv6 or IPs in general.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think an indefinite block for an IP is what is being considered (that sounds like a very bad idea). /64 has low collateral really too. --IWI (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all for clarifications. :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't speak for other admins, but I probably wouldn't jump to indef on the IPs immediately (though maybe on the named account). It would be a slow build up of longer and longer blocks toping out at the typical 1 year max for an IP that isn't a proxy IP. And it wouldn't be the first time. His IPs have been blocked in the past before we all knew it was him doing it, so not sure if blocking just the IPs would make him stop. It would probably take blocking his main account as well. As for collateral, most ISPs assign IPv6 /64 ranges to a single customer in the same way a single customer gets a single IPv4 IP. -Djsasso (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The whole situation is somewhat puzzling, but I agree with Djsasso about not jumping to indef on IPs. We should follow the normal procedure and go from there. --Yottie =talk= 18:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus here maybe to implement a block of some type on the IPs at the very least if not their main account as well. At the very least it appears they are running a bot without authorization which is blockworthy in and of itself. The fact that they have not one single time replied to anyone's concerns on their talk page including the two notices about this discussion means they are violating en:Wikipedia:Communication is required as well. Am I correct in thinking there is consensus? I ask because I don't want this to get lost in the archives. Could we maybe get people to chime off if they think a block is warranted so its a bit more clear. -Djsasso (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

At that point, we would just be repeating the conversation above. But I do think there is a consensus to block the unauthorized bot. I do personally feel a bit sad in saying that due to the loss of someone with 25, 237 edits. But policies are policies, and I do think that there is consensus here. Naleksuh (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  I certianly think a block is the only way forward at this point for both the account and IP range. The user has been given chances to communicate over a period of several months. We certainly can't allow these bot creations to continue, and since the user does not answer to comments, there's not much else we can do. --IWI (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Yeah I certainly don't want to redo the conversation above. I just wanted to make sure people stated clearly they thought a block was the way forward. Most comments above talked about issues but didn't necessarily outright say lets block him. So I wanted any admin to be super clear before we blocked as you say a 25k+ editor. -Djsasso (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, as requested, I am chiming in to agree that a block of the named account is appropriate and should be done. If creation from the IPs continues, then short and progressively longer blocks seem reasonable. --Gotanda (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I can make an attempt at speaking to the editor (after all, they speak the same language); It is my opinion that a block must not affect the named account, but only the IPs (which also means not blocking named users operating from the IPs). I haven't run a checkuser, as so far I haven't seen any need. I do however trust the named editor; in my opion, the edits of the named editor do not warrant removing the autopatrolled flag. --Eptalon (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
If you can get through to him in his native language then great, but at the bare minunum we must remove the patrol right here. There is no way any of those stub creations can be considered autopatrol worthy creations. And the IP range is certainly him, no CU is required. They always edit at the same time – they clean up and patrol every stub within a few minutes. There really is no debate whether this IP range is him. Evidence from other wikis makes it very likely they are using an unauthorised bot script to create these stubs en masse and then patrolling them while logged in. This is definitley something we would apply a block for to protect the encyclopedia if they refuse to stop or do not communicate. --IWI (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I left a message on his talk page, in German. Any action taken should be the result of a consensus. So please don't jump to conclusions here. --Eptalon (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course. In order to achieve that consensus I am adding my point of view to the discussion, which is of course how Wikipedia works. Thank you for leaving a message for him in German; we shall see if he does respond. --IWI (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As above I really hope they will communicate, not easy and dedication to keep to so many mainspace edits over so many years (w/o breaking the temptation to break it). However, communication is needed here. I will note if we block the IP address only, they can IP hop and that might be problematic. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not immediately clear that Gay Yong Hernandez will IP hop. If the ISP respects the conventional sizes of IPv6 prefixes, a /64 or /56 block is sufficient for coverage (I understand that some particularly generous ISPs grant a single /48 to each customer). If anything, if IP hopping occurs after the above-mentioned IP block(s) are made, I would start considering it as potential evidence of bad faith and refusal to communicate. Chenzw  Talk  11:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I am meaning the hopping between different IPs such as using multiple /64 blocks or rather using other ipv4 etc. I am worried there might be a possibility that they will resort into using other IPs to evade the blocks, this will certainly be met by further blocks for evasion but I truly doesn't want to see a good faith contributor turning into a LTA or sort. I know I might be pessimistic (given how the current global climate is in part) but such blocks to communicate might not yield much afterall. I am for a block for creating bad pages with or without using a bot but then they fixed most of the pages. Block or not block we need to calibrate properly to ensure it doesn't turn into a true net negative for the project. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree there is consensus to block the IPs for a period of time, with a warning not to continue. I would hold fire on the named account, as per Eptalon's suggestion. --Yottie =talk= 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Block I guess is okay for now, since they are editing after Eptalon message and didn't engage here. Communication is needed for a collaborative project. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

In light of recent sentiment on-wiki I think I should clarify the above statement doesn't want to see a good faith contributor turning into a LTA: one does not simply become an editor worthy of "LTA treatment" merely because they evade blocks. Saying that a "good faith" editor becomes an "LTA" is an oxymoron - if you accept that their contributions are good, what is the reason for turning into an LTA case in the first place? I don't know the reason(s) behind GYH not engaging with the community - perhaps they are extremely shy, perhaps some other reason - but that is hardly enough yet to label them as "LTA". WP:LTA explains further under the section "Don't use LTA unless needed". Chenzw  Talk  12:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes the term "LTA" implies bad faith, but I am pretty sure that GYH is acting in good faith. I don't see how a person acting in good faith can be labelled as "LTA". After all, they are creating pages and cleaning up new ones; I don't think any of their behaviour suggests otherwise. This is very much a WP:CIR issue. There could be a large number of reasons why they do not respond. A block would not imply that the user is acting in bad faith, and nor would them editing under a new IP address. --IWI (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Let me clarify where I am coming from. I seen cases in other wikis where there are some good faith contributors for some reason or sort get blocked for some reasons, and then they started using multiple IPs to disrupt the project, over a period of time, they turned into an LTA. What I didn't place in the original statement is that the time it progresses from good faith to LTA. Clearly, I am versed with LTAs having dealt with it in various venues, I know when to / when not to term someone as LTA. I am not saying GYH now is a LTA, it clearly isn't. What I don't want is that there is that slim chance they might. LTA implies bad faith yes, what I mean is that someone who may be aggrieved by a block can have the tendency (however slim) to turn into LTA. @ImprovedWikiImprovment: I will say blocking them by itself implies assuming bad faith in general, unless we are using CIR as a reason but to be honest, saying CIR is also meaning they lack the competence to edit which is also sour to the user in practice. Blocks tend to follow warnings, and usually is level 4/level 4im, which implies bad faith anyway. In addition, if we allow them to edit under new IP address, we aren't solving the problem and then why do we block in the 1st place. And if they edit using another IP address when blocked, repeating the same behaviour, this can be deemed as bad faith editing or whatsoever. What my point is that should we block, let us communicate the reason properly, and then give them the chance to address the issues (given their communication issues - we need to be extremely patient). I don't want to see a block on them, and then the standard block notice and etc, and then they use another IPs to edit, we block the another IP as block evasion and this goes on and on and after 2 years, yeah, we have an LTA. Let us handle this carefully. Sorry for the language used, pardon me if it was a little excessive. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Left an additional message for them to engage. Hope they can finally talk to us. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

GYH has Interwiki "Other Languages" Links for his userpage, Is this allowed? (I've never seen it done before, and I want to do it for mine too, but wanted to make sure its okay) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask Gay Yong Hernandez to email me? (Or any one of us) If he prefers that way? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: Yes, you can have hardcoded interwiki links on your own user pages, to link your user pages across sites. I have it on mine. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Auntof6 How do I do it? Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: Just put [[en:User:Thegooduser]] at the bottom and change the language/page name accordingly. --IWI (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 25 more new bot minimal stubs from IP then updated by GYH after the message in German from eptalon. We have made multiple exceptions for this editor and many attempts to contact them. It appears they do not wish to communicate or follow the policies of this wiki. --Gotanda (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Gotanda Can we at least give him the simple English Wikipedia Admins's email, before we do anything else. Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I think he has been given far more chances than most now. Whatever the reason may be, he is not communicating nor listening to our community. These stubs are unhelpful, and I still support a block on both the IP range and account. --IWI (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, we can't just go and block him, without giving him the admin's email list email. Like Chenzw has said, maybe he's shy. Or maybe the reason is private and hence he didn't respond. Let's just see if he will respond via email, we can't just go blocking him without giving him the chance to email the admins first. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Change conflict -- Why? We have already made every reasonable effort to communicate with this editor. They have chosen to never respond. Here are 45 more. Both those sets of IP created pages have been patrolled. Were they patrolled by GYH themselves? No other current editor is given this much leeway to work outside the clearly explained policies of this wiki. --Gotanda (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Gay Yong Hernandez does not have an e-mail address attached to his account. Whatever the reason for the lack of communication may be, he is welcome to write on his talk page or send e-mail while blocked. Naleksuh (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(Change Conflict) Alright then, I'm not the community and I don't make the decisions here, it's based on consensus, if the community doesn't want my suggestion, then they can go ahead and do what they want. (This tone of message might sound like I'm attacking, but I'm not :) ) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
IPv6 /64 blocked for 1 week and message left on GYH's talk page. As a side note, if one is concerned that the tone of their message might sound combative, perhaps they need to re-think how they worded their original comment(s) in the first place. Chenzw  Talk  03:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Just noting here that the stub creations have continued from an IP within the /48 range (not covered by the smaller range blocked), specifically 2A02:21B0:644D:AF3A:C441:FCD8:D80B:56F2. --IWI (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
No communication. No change in behavior (except to try evade the IP block). Editor is knowingly violating pretty clear policies of this wiki that aren't hard to follow. Why has GYH not been blocked? --Gotanda (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Gotanda, we are looking at an editor with over 26.000 edits in this Wikipedia. I have personally given Gay Yong Hernandez the patroller right (about a year ago), I don't see anything wrong with the edits they do (as named editor). For my part, GYH is a trusted member of the community. --Eptalon (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

East Japan Railway CompanyEdit

If that article, if I'm correct, was copied from English Wikipedia, and not attributed, I have no idea which version it was taken from, is it a copyright violation? I editied the article and did not know it was copied from EN. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Apparently is the latest edition, seems the lede only. The text is almost the same. I just provided the attribution (and is acceptable as it's not too long ago). Is copyvio then but no more, but ideally the translated page template should be added eariler. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ImprovedWikiImprovmentEdit

Please note there is a RFA open --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you know...?Edit

Hello all, I think we should revive the DYK process. Ideally, we should have 1-2 updates a month (ideally, one every other week). I therefore propose we do an update of the DYK hooks in one week's time. Look at the nomination page:

  • Add new ineresting hooks
  • Review existing ones
  • Help fix the ones with findings.

Ideally: Publication of new hooks, Oct. 18, 2020. --Eptalon (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Eptalon I Agree, Sometimes some hooks stay on for months, while some for only a week. It isn't fair --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, Eptalon. I agree, it would be great to get this updated more often, given the prominence of the Main Page. --Yottie =talk= 17:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon, Thegooduser, Yottie: I agree. I will try to get more involved in DYK over the coming days. There was a point where I was able to update the template fairly often a month or two ago. --IWI (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: It's not a question of being fair. Everyone here is a volunteer and works on whatever they have the time for and interest in. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Auntof6 Yes, somewhat. But it takes a lot of time and effort to make a DYK hook. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser:Yes... but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything being fair. If you're saying we should all pay more attention to DYK because people put time and effort into it, I'd have to disagree. We all decide for ourselves where to put our time and effort. I'm not saying DYK isn't worthwhile, just that we shouldn't make people feel obligated to participate. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Auntof6, If we shouldn't pay more attentions to DYK's then there is no need for this discussion to take place at all. But I respect your opinion and everyone's opinion and we'd have to go with what the majority agrees to. I don't want to make this conversation heated, and I don't intend rudeness with my tone of sentence here, It's just hard to put into words what I'm trying to say. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: I don't consider this conversation to be heated. :) We all have things we think deserve more attention, and the thing is, we're all right: everything here deserves more attention. But as long as each person decides for themselves what to spend their time on, not everything will get all the attention it deserves. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Auntof6 I totally agree with you. We all have different areas we like to work on here, but in the end, we're all helping build the SEWP! --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This is why I suggested awhile back in the last push to get DYK going again to remember to not just immediately publish a queue to the front page once it was full. There should be a number of queued up ones waiting before we change the one on the main page, then it becomes easier to determine when you should change the main page one as you can see how fast new sets are being filled up and you are prepared for periods of slower creation. Based on past history the ones on the front page probably shouldn't be changed more than once every other month or so. Obviously the goal is to get it happening much faster. But yes the fact that some of them changed after only a week was exactly the reason I suggested making sure you have a number queued up and ready so you can spread out the changing of them. Remember how many DYKs we create is directly proportional to how many new/significantly expanded pages we create. So the best way to solve this situation is to create/expand more articles. -Djsasso (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with changing it once a month. That should give us enough time to fill a queue, and any extras can go onto the following month's queue. --Yottie =talk= 19:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, we are almost there; the next DYK queue (2) is full, except for the DYK with the picture...--Eptalon (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-42Edit

15:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Robin WilliamsEdit

We've been getting some increased vandalism on this article. If anyone feels like adding it to their watchlist, at least for a while, that might help us catch the vandalism quicker. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Yes I have it there now, although it all seems to be coming from one IP range, as listed on VIP. In any case, I will keep an eye. --IWI (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


I'm currently in the process of making this article a Good Article or Very Good Article, where can I find the rules for them? If anyone wants to help, feel free to :) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles and Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles. --IWI (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest doing it in two steps, the Good article criteria are a subset of the very good article criteria. The proposals page: for Good Articles, and for Very Good Articles.--Eptalon (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Only cursory glance: There are very few red-links, so you are probably almost at a level to poropose for Good Article. --Eptalon (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I do agree with that. The article is near to the GA level, however everything will need to be sourced. The sourcing in the article needs to be improved; I can try to help with that. Most of the claims are unsourced. --IWI (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Update to WikiProject: VIdeo Game HardwareEdit

We are now Wikiproject: Video Game Hardware and Software, as a few video game software pages are in need of improvement. Thank you.--Derpdart56 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

also the reason we're not wikiproject video games is that was already taken and that one was kinda dead so yeah--Derpdart56 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Why not just revive that one, a wikiproject isn't really tied to one person, anyone can be in them. No need to reinvent the wheel. -Djsasso (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


Hello. In our current DYK article templates, it mentions that if the article has been in a DYK or not, in the talkpage of the article. However, it does not mention the hook, which was used, unlike EN wiki. The hook should be added in the template, so future DYK'ers can know which hook/fact not to use --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion to me. --Yottie =talk= 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It already does. Look at the second example on the template page for how to do it. -Djsasso (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-43Edit

16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Reeii Edu advertising through sources?Edit

If so, that's a new one -Derpdart56 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Rolled it all back. --IWI (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
That's odd. No COI vandal has done that one before. -Derpdart56 (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I seem to come across it a fair bit actually. User now blocked by Vermont; all changes reverted. --IWI (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Important: maintenance operation on October 27Edit

-- Trizek (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Yakutat City and Borough, AlaskaEdit

Change to Yakutat? Per wp?

--MangoRum (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


I think the page is vandalised. MangoRum (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It was. Seems to be fixed now. --IWI (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I’ve also tagged the vandalism photo for speedy deletion on commons. --IWI (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


Around 2 weeks ago, I made a page for Thiago Alcântara. Today I started looking through Sport Stub pages, and found Thiago Alcántara, which has not been edited since 2014. My question is what do we do with the original page? ShadowBallX2 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@ShadowBallX2: I took care of it. The one you created is more complete and spelled correctly, so I redirected the other one and changed the Wikidata item. I notice that there are incoming links to both pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

CentralNotice banner for Wikipedia Asian Month 2020Edit

Dear colleagues, please comment on CentralNotice banner proposal for Wikipedia Asian Month 2020 (1st November to 30st November, 2020). Thank you! --KOKUYO (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant to us as the default language is en, so there isn't a separate simple banner. In addition, 2nd time raising up, I still yet have received my email certification as organizer last year (last time is on meta). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
What is however relevant is WAM will be starting in 1 weeks time, hope to see more signups. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not editing until I know somethingEdit

I'm not a vandal or sock. Please don't judge me. Can I edit now? BlopoSnare (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend you, but saying "I'm not a vandal or a sock" is only going to make people wonder if you're a vandal or a sock. If you've been mistaken for either on another wiki, then there is not much here on Simple we can do about that. Except if you were to make good edits that a vandal or sock would not make. There is a lot of work to do here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes prove yourself to us by having good faith and make good edits. (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Julie Condliffe scandalEdit

I was patrolling new pages and wasn't sure Julie Condliffe was notable. A search showed she'd been part of a scandal. I would like to ask someone with more experience in BLP to give the matter a look. The sources I found are on talk. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinion on articleEdit

Hello, I just created my first page on the Simple English Wikipedia, Loveless. I'd like to know if there is anything wrong with it. If there are any errors please let me know so I don't do them again in the future. Thanks GhostP. talk 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi GhostP.. The article was great, just a little bit of simplifying I had to do. You might find this page useful for simplifying in the future. Also, I don't know if you based your article from another Wikipedia (like the English Wikipedia or Portuguese Wikipedia), but if you did, you should add attribution on the talk page for copyright. That link will show you how to do that. Thank you :). --IWI (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Rwanda disagreementEdit

I am having a disagreement with Rsk6400 about the page for Rwanda and would like help figuring out what it means for the page and the website. You can look at the changes starting with mine a couple days ago to see what the disagreement is. I don't believe the reasons Rsk6400 is removing my changes are good ones and would like to know if others agree. I mentioned the user here so they can explain in more detail if they want to. You can also see what they said on my talk page here. DoSazunielle (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-44Edit

17:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

AbuseFilter notice: rmspecials() will no longer remove whitespace when used in filtersEdit


Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language.

We are making a change to the AbuseFilter extension, which may impact the behavior of some existing filters. The rmspecials() function currently removes spaces in addition to special characters. We will change it such that it will only remove special characters. The existing rmwhitespace() can be used to remove spaces whenever applicable.

As reported on we believe at least one filter on your wiki has been identified to use the rmspecials() function. Please consider updating these filters by wrapping rmspecials() inside rmwhitespace() like this: rmwhitespace(rmspecials(....))

We need you to update the relevant filters within 2 weeks of this notice. If one of the community members with proper access is volunteering to take this on, we ask them to please respond below and notify User:Huji in their response or in the edit summary. If we don't hear back from you within 2 weeks, Huji will edit the relevant filters on your wiki per the global abuse filter maintainer policy, to ensure the filters won't break once the change is implemented. Thank you for your consideration!

Best regards,

--User:Huji (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC), sent via MediaWiki message delivery

  Done DannyS712 (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

i need helpEdit

how do you do that thing where if you click on the word it takes you to another page '''˜”*°•.˜”*°• Malifex •°*”˜.•°*”˜ ''' (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Malifex: I don't quite understand what you're asking. Could you explain a little more? Kind regards, --IWI (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

ok so like its blue or red and if it is red it creates the page but if its blue then it takes you to the page '''˜”*°•.˜”*°• Malifex •°*”˜.•°*”˜ ''' (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC) @ImprovedWikiImprovment: hello??

@Malifex: Sorry I still don't understand. --IWI (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand this. Red links are pages that do not exist (yet). Blue links means that a page exists on this wiki. If you see a red link, consider making a page for it. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 (change conflict) Malifex, I believe you're referring to hyperlinks. We create a hyperlink by adding two brackets to either side of what you want to make a link to. For example, if I wanted to make a link to earth, I would add: [[earth]], which would show as earth. Because the page exists, the link will be blue. If the link showed as red, it means the page does not exist, and clicking on it would take you to the page to create it. Hope this helps! Vermont (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I see what they were asking now. Thank you both :) --IWI (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovement: no problem. always here to help. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

thanks!! '''˜”*°•.˜”*°• Malifex •°*”˜.•°*”˜ ''' (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Malifex I do notice you have received some warnings for vandalism etc. You are more than welcome to make good edits, but please do not vandalise anymore, you can test changes here. Thank you! --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

International Food Policy Research InstituteEdit

Infobox is broken --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: User:Chenzw reverted some edits someone made earlier this month. It looks OK to me now, how about to you? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, looks fine now. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle ProblemEdit

Twinkle no longer logs my QD's when I have it checked to do so. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't look like an issue with Twinkle - I was not able to reproduce the issue when I enabled QD logging manually. Please check your browser configuration, as well as the browser's JavaScript console (Google this) for any errors when/after you attempt to tag an article for QD. Chenzw  Talk  12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Seems to be working now. Twinkle always sometimes works and sometimes doesn't for me. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

IP maskingEdit

Here on metawiki. Just before WMF engages us I think it's sort of confirmed this will go on. Just a FYI but I think we will be affected heavily as we rely on IP editors quite a lot. It might be time for us to think through the issues and solutions. I don't think it will be implemented soon, but early prep might be well. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I've already got an issue with this, though I cannot discuss this here per DENY. I can email you about the issue I have if that's fine? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess is better to just send the concerns to WMF staff in charge of this project, Johan. His username is User:Johan (WMF). WMF need to know our concerns. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)