Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Cebuano Wikipedia

< Proposals for closing projects
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a proposal for closing and/or deleting a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is subject to the current closing projects policy.

The proposal is rejected and the project will be kept open.

  • A Language Committee member provided the following comment:
    There is no policy justification to close this wiki. There are very, very few exceptions to the rule that individual projects are free to decide for themselves how to allow content to be added. It is up to the Cebuano Wikipedia community to decide for itself what to do about bot-created content in the project.
  • LangCom certainly understands that there is notable concern about the bot-generated content on this project. The Committee would like to recommend to the project that it tighten up quality control, which quite possibly includes closer oversight of bot content creation. But ultimately quality control is the responsibility of the community itself.
For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cebuano Wikipedia mostly consists of bot-generated stubs, like the Volapuk wiki did 10 years ago. There are virtually no active users other than Lsj, his bot, a few vandals, and the MediaWiki message delivery bot. I propose that the bot-created articles be deleted, and that the rest of the wiki be moved to Incubator. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Comment This affects a Philippine language so notified PhilWiki Community, the Wikimedia User Group in that country. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Comment One of the General Objectives of PhilWiki Community is to create, organize, develop, and engage in activities that promote free, responsibly open-content resources and reference materials in English, and Philippine languages where there are existing communities. Since its formation, the User Group has conducted activities for Bikol Wikipedia (in Naga City and Camarines Sur) and Rinconada Bikol Wikipedia (in Naga City and Iriga City) which is still in the Incubator, unfortunately, and has supported activities for Waray Wikipedia (in Tacloban City and provinces of Samar and Northern Samar). In 2013, I initiated to hold Wiki Takes Cebu but unfortunately it was cancelled because my flight was cancelled. We listed in our Specific Activities (#s 2 and 4) the creation of Wiktionary in Cebuano and translation into Cebuano the interface of Wikimedia projects because one of our members knows the language. Although another user who speaks the language joined the group however both of them are now inactive. --Filipinayzd (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment CommentI tried to add entries for cebwiktionary but I do not know how. It seems adding entries is not supported in incubator phase. So ended up adding some grammar stuff instead. Anyway my focus and that of the FB groupchat circle is saving cebwiki from those who want to close it. -Josefwintzent Libot (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let's not close a Wikipedia for 21 million people, with multiple users, because there's a few too many bot-created articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Inactivity alone is not a reason for project closure, as has been stated in past discussions. The main criterion for closing a project would be absence of content and/or community. Cebuano Wikipedia has a lot of content (it is the second-largest Wikipedia!) and, having 21 million native speakers (as stated above), as well as being the second-most spoken language in the Philippines, getting more native speakers on board to grow the community should not be a problem. A large number of bot-created articles is also not a reason to close a Wikipedia. In the top 10 largest Wikipedias, Dutch Wikipedia and Waray Wikipedia were also grown by using bots; does that mean we should close them too? In short, there isn't really a case for closing this Wikipedia. --DraconicDark (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If somebody ran a bot to autogenerate low-quality articles on en.wiki, they'd probably be community-banned. On ceb.wiki, there is no community to ban Lsj, so this is the only thing I can do. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support for full retaliation against the people who have covered multiple language editions of Wikipedia with complete and utter rubbish, such as (going through local Special:Random) ‘Governor's Mansion Historical Marker’ and ‘Ribeirão da Onça (suba sa Brasil, São Paulo, lat -22,45, long -51,50)’. I would also argue in favour of full global ban of Lsjbot and nuking of all the ‘articles’ that were created by its owner. This is unprecedented abuse and I am frankly astonished that it took so long to start this closure request. There are no current options at the table other than to close the editions that are fully populated by bots (Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias) and move with the strictest sanctions possible against the language editions that have other content as well but are still densely populated by automatically created content (Swedish and Dutch Wikipedias). stjn[ru] 02:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There certainly are other options; at one extreme, we could just let Wikipedias chose how they populate their content. I certainly have no problem with the appropriate use of automatically created content; the English Wikipedia has a large block of automatically created content that has been a useful basis for expansion. Perhaps the Cebuano Wikipedia deserves a stronger response, but deleting useful Wikipedias because of excessive automatically created articles seems to go against to providing information to everyone in their own language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Prosfilaes: I see that there is a major misunderstanding of this topic (bot-created articles). The difference between Russian Wikipedia choosing to use bots for facilitating growth of the project, English Wikipedia choosing to do this, French etc. and these projects is that there was an active community to check in on these bot-created articles to see if there are any errors. I don’t suggest that any other project that I mentioned improved all articles that were created by bots, but at least in any other case they at least cared enough to have excessive checks at the quality of material. When I see articles such as ‘Grodno Oblast’, which has the following sentence in its text: ‘Grodno Oblast mopakigbahin sa usa ka utlanan sa Brest Oblast, Vitebsk Oblast, Minsk Oblast, Podlaskie Voivodeship, Alytus, ug 維爾紐斯縣’, I see gross negligence first and foremost. And I can’t justify to myself that other articles do not have such blatant errors, when the rate they were uploaded at is 10,000/day. This is not the case of appropriate use of automatically created content by any measure. stjn[ru] 07:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • ceb and war should be moved to Incubator and their subdomains should be redirected to en:Lsjbot. sv and nl should be perma-ACTRIAL'd and perma-CAPTCHA'd. Lsjbot should be perma-globalled, and Lsj himself should be indef'd from ceb, war, and sv. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don’t see how some of those actions will be beneficial to anyone: sv and nl should be perma-ACTRIAL'd and perma-CAPTCHA'd − what is this supposed to solve? There are still active communities there and anons there didn’t participate in any part of this. Lsj himself should be indef'd from ceb, war, and sv – activity of Lsj was supported by active communities that agreed to these kinds of abuse, so indefinite block will solve nothing (and I think that he acted in good faith, even if there was no one to call him to order). Moreover, I don’t think that redirecting any subdomain on wikipedia.org will be technically possible or something that anyone would agree to. stjn[ru] 09:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 2 cents as a technical person in my volunteer capacity, I'm not reflecting position of any of my employees (WMF, WMDE), These articles has put lots of pressure on the whole infrastructure of Wikimedia. Here's an example directly caused by this mass import: phab:T171263 and tens of thousands of dollars (and probably way more) donor money is spent on this (in matter of server, bandwidth, database as it's putting pressure on other s3 wikis and it needs a dedicated shard, human software engineering time, etc.) which is okay if anyone reads these articles. I think this wiki has lost the idea of what means to be a Wikipedia Amir (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. This is what might happen: a Cebuano speaker clicks "random article" a few times, reads the LSJBOT pages, is astounded by their low quality, and decides to create his or her own CC-licensed Mediawiki-based Cebuano-language encyclopedia. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how closing the Cebuano Wikipedia is a solution to that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hear a solution. Closing a Wikipedia of 21 million speakers is not a solution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's a solution that you don't like, but it is a solution. Do you have a better idea? Mx. Granger (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not doing anything. If the only option is to close or not close, the status quo is better.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is alternate (compromise) solution: removing all bot created articles except those from List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have/Expanded and from lists like "all years" and "all centuries".--EUvin (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed Lsjbot created articles in ceb.wki, and do agree that indeed it poor comprehensibility. However, I also discover that the issue of comprehensibility is actually easy to resolve under a supervision of a native speaker of Cebuano. I am trying to collaborate now with the bot creator to address this. So please do not anymore close down ceb.wikipedia.org -- Josefwintzent Libot
  • Strong oppose Please do not close ceb.wiki as it will make my contributions as Joseph Walay Hanaw go to the drain too. Since 2010 I often do editing as anonymous both here in ceb.wiki and en.wiki but now as my work allows it finally I am openning a new account as Josefwintzent. The Cebuano speaking community are now organizing too to improve the contents of ceb.wiki so please do not close it yet. User:Josefwintzent Libot
    • I would argue that the closure is not an endpoint for Cebuano community. You and others like you could still contribute to a project in Wikimedia Incubator after the wiki will get rid of bot-created articles. But this is the key difference − there must be a demonstration that there is a healthy community of editors, that is willing to support the project in good faith and not turn it into bot malfunction on steroids anymore. The same goes to others that are currently plagued by this stuff. stjn[ru] 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support I find the arguments for keeping this wiki extremely weak. You have 5,382,920 articles with 154 active users? And you find that acceptable? The amount of people who speak the language is not indicative of the status of a wiki or its need. I am very concerned about the rampant editing that Lsj's bot has done on the wiki. 12,219,065 edits out of the 16,544,718 total? That's not a wiki, and its continuance should not be permitted. Nihlus 03:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a high number of articles is not a good reason for closing a Wikipedia. How do you measure the need for a Wikipedia? w:List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers puts Cebuano as one of the 60 largest languages in the world, and w:Internet_in_the_Philippines says at least a third of Filipinos have Internet access. That seems to establish the justification for the existence of a Wikipedia. That 150 active users is about on par with Afrikaans and Welsh, certainly justification in and of itself for a Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be frank, the most ‘active’ users in that list are those that come and go from other language editions, not Cebuano-speaking people. stjn[ru] 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you whether they're Cebuano-speaking people? How does this differ from the Afrikaans and Welsh Wikipedias? Why shouldn't we expect Cebuano speakers, who in many cases will speak Tagalog and English, to also edit other Wikipedias? If the number of active users is relevant, then I'd rather work with hard numbers than vague analysis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Closing the wiki doesn't sound like it will solve anything. If your concern is with the bot-created articles, then propose something to deal with them. I'll also note that stubs can sometimes generate content improvement, as people fill in missing information when they see it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for people like you that are more considerate. -- Josefwintzent Libot
    • Stubs can both generate improvement and stay in the same condition for hundreds of years. In the case of Cebuano Wikipedia, there is no possible situation in which people would go to these articles about every micro-organism, about every park which Lsj made up, about every city he didn’t research information about and improve on it. It is not a minor issue, it is one of the biggest in the history of Wikipedia, and this is an appropriate place to discuss ways of resolving this situation. stjn[ru] 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed it is true that there is no possible way an individual human can check all those articles, however there is no possible way either one can predict which articles each human visitors will check out. So you cannot actually say I will delete this and I will delete that based on the argument that no individual humans can check all of these. The solution is not deletion of articles nor closure of a wikipedia. The real solution is improving these articles. That is what we are initiating now in the cebwp editing community. Josefwintzent Libot(Talk)
  • Strong oppose The Cebuano Wikipedia should be improved not closed. The solution should be to recruit and reach out to Cebuano native speakers for improving the existing stubs and merging duplicate entries. —Harvzsf (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I agree with the arguments of Harvzsf and DraconicDark above. None of the pro-closure arguments actually build a case for closure. A look at Cebwp:Recent Changes will show that there is an active community, even if it is not huge. Several users are actively working both on improving the bot articles and on adding other content, though I agree with Harvzsf that recruiting more native speakers would be highly desirable. Concerning the articles themselves, they should be judged on their merit, not on their method of creation. Furthermore, they should be judged by their merits as a whole set, both good and bad, not only by hand-selected examples of "rubbish". In any case, the quality issues are better handled within the cebwp community, and are currently being handled there. Lsj (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • ↑ Full disclosure: this is a man that is the current author of 99% of content at Cebuano Wikipedia.
      Lsj, have you ever looked at how the creation of articles by bots works in other language editions, except of those that followed the ugly trend of Dutch Wikipedia? Well, for one thing, there is something called checking process, in which users that want to uncontrollably push the articles into the project have to at least check what they are going to upload. You have not done it over your entire career, I can assure you, otherwise there would’ve not been any stuff to ‘hand-select’ (which isn’t true, by the way). When you are uploading over 5 million articles without any checks about the validity of data, every fu... misstep you have is completely yours to deal with and not the one you can shun away from. Not the community you are trying to sign up to this task of cleaning Augeas’ stables up. stjn[ru] 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are killing the wiki. In ruwiki we have only 10-20% of bot-created articles with better quality and a big community to improve them, and they are still a huge problem. The mass bot-creation stopped several years ago, though even now the community resources are not enough to make them properly sourced and meaningful. It is a problem for the future community, not a help. Better stop and nuke all the bot-stuff. The community won't arise around all that. Only die out of enormous work and lack of resources.--Abiyoyo (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr. Johansson, if you do not stop your bot, this closing proposal would not be the last! ~ Чръный человек (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have Strong support Strong support for the deletion of all the bot-created articles per Abiyoyo: actually, it seems to me there is no problem in doing so as such articles usually has no editors but Lsjbot and other bots. It seems interesting to me to know the reasons why this was not done before.
    At the same time let me comment on the general potential of the Cebuano-speaking Wikipedia: around 20 millions of speakers is more than many European languages with healthy Wikipedia communities have, and even if it is (please excuse me if I am rather blatant, English is not my native language) fourth-sort language as most of its educated speakers probably prefer Tagalog, Spanish or English Wikipedias instead, with the situation being probably worsened by the poor access to the Internet, I believe the complete closure of Cebuano Wikipedia is not necessary. Викизавр (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't done before because it takes a lot for external users to mess with the internal policies of a Wikipedia, and the local community seems to be largely made up of the person who is running the bot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment I don't speak the Cebuano language, so I think I personally have no position to decide whether to close it or not, since I am not either the potential reader or editor. However, I found out that from the pageview tool, we can see the Cebuano Wikipedia itself attract more human readers then incubator wikimedia. In that case, if I am the community who need to fight the bot, I would try to use this as advantage, for example to make Site Notice to direct people from the page to community editathons or writing bootcamp, so potential new editors can increase. --Liang(WMTW) (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote on this is to Oppose the proposed closure. However, the Cebuano Wikipedia (and the Waray Wikipedia by extension) need a serious overhaul, perhaps by turning off Lsjbot (preferably for a period between six months to two years) while simultaneously undergoing a very thorough review of bot-made articles and subsequent modifications, deletions and redirects. A parallel effort to create and expand articles from this list (preferably done manually) can also be done in the same timeframe and in the thereafter. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above comments, reason not valid to close a wiki. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 15:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing gets better after closing. Fixing is only possible as long as you have something to fix. Of course it is tough to fix, but what isn't? --Oop (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose :I oppose KATMAKROFAN (talk) closure proposal in the strongest terms. This is not the right move or action. He didn't bother discussing this first in our community notice board or the embassy. I understand that the bot-inflated-article-count issue has a long history of discussions but I have never encountered one on nuking a wikipedia for using bots. Clean-up and deletion of articles is the way to go, not closure. Jordz (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Up to the community their to regulate the bots creation of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support mass deletion of bot-created articles. Oppose full closure. No need to close the wiki. Just intervene and nuke all the bot-created articles.--Abiyoyo (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Jordz and Doc James. There are other alternatives. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 04:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, let’s look at the long-term value of the Cebuano Wikipedia here, having automatically created content doesn't mean that the content is unnecessary, imagine if in the future a lot of people decide to improve those stubs, a huge quantity of content isn't a bad thing per se as it could always be expanded and improved in the future. Local wiki’s should have their own autonomy and if the Cebuano Wikipedia and Waray Wikipedia sites want to make automated articles and no-one there is against this then this should be handled locally, Cebuano has as much speakers as Dutch so by discontinuing this wiki it would prove millions of people a disservice. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 11:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is incredibly easy to deal with. Simply append all unedited bot creations to draftspace. And note that any humans subsequently making pages can use them as a base, or delete them and start from scratch on an individual basis. There is no reason to waste the many thousand's of dollars spent on automated wikipedia growth. Nor to close a wikipedia read by over a million people every day. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Let's fix the quality of cebwiki without closing it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this discussed within the community, or at least attempted? — regards, Revi 13:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don’t think so. If the proposer speaks Cebuano he would have noted that one of the admins had opened up the topic of the bots in a discussion and it was still ongoing. Based on what’s on the Cebuano Village Pump (the Cebuano name is Tubaan), the proposer only posted the notice of this proposal for closure a mere 3 minutes before posting this proposal here. Three minutes isn’t enough time for a discussion. —Harvzsf (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support It's time to give a strong signal. We should first think of creating a stable and self-sustaining community, by letting them grow at their own pace. This explosion of articles created just by one bot is a quirk that risks to give us bad publicity, especially with institutions with whom we're addressing the issues of reliability and overall quality. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 14:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What the hell is going on here? Bae, let me have my glasses. OK, now I can see that someone is requesting the closure of a language Wikipedia spoken by millions of people in Philippines. I don't know whether to describe this as a nonsensical request or trolling but I want to believe this request is made in good faith. I think we should be discussing how to improve this language Wikipedia through several outreach program that will focus on recruiting contributors to this project. I do want to support a program that will increase the number of editors that will continue to contribute to that project and not a proposal to close a Wikipedia language spoken by millions of people. Wikicology (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support Hello, I think that such a wikipedia version should be closed. It is hard to find any content that is encyclopedic. By that I mean texts that are describing the world. What I see usually in this wiki are sentences based on the content of databases. I do not regard that to be encyclopedic, and I doubt that this kind of content really serves readers. On the contrary, I am a big fan of the ArticlePlaceHolder thing because it keeps the presented information fresh and it does not pretend to be an encyclopedic article. Ziko (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This is deletism to a new level. --Filipinayzd (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main purpose of any version of Wikipedia is to deliver knowledge in its language. As long as there is some content of educational value there, I don't actually care whether it's created by people, bots, elfs or Klingons. If it gives some people free access to some knowledge, then it serves part of our mission. Powerek38 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do understand the fact that the people opposing you also might not care that the articles themselves are written by bots or not. I do think that some classes of Lsj’s work were better than others (so articles about places are generally better in terms of quality and content than thousands upon thousands of worse-than-stubs about some biological species right out of one database), but I also think that Lsj is blinded by the initial success of his bot. He did not create an environment for other editors to improve upon these articles, he did not check them themselves (otherwise there would not be such problems with having Chinese text in multiple articles), he did not do anything to start an actual community. He just needed a carte blanche for this kind of abuse and in the current form this language edition deserves either closure or nuking of 99% of its content entirely. stjn[ru] 20:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment I have nothing against bot-generated content, but this wiki is a problem. It decreases the creditability of all wikimedia contents. I wouldn't close it, thou. Emptywords (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support you cannot possibly attract new users to help with developing something build on the wrong basis. There is a great joy in writing new article. With this level of botting you removed one of the main reasons, why new people join Wikipedia. PuchaczTrado (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A motion to delete a Wikipedia by someone who has made a total of six edits there? Really? And with support from people who have made none? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. It is laughable, Andy. Wikicology (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bad ad hominem. Try to deal with arguments instead. stjn[ru] 20:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that creating 5 million articles in 5 years would seem like a piece of cake and bot-created articles could be fixed in no time. Let me show you this: Hayward (lungsod sa Estados Unidos, California), Al Wakrah (munisipyo), Zhejiang Sheng. Bot uploads full lists of interwiki links in its articles in 2017. Bot creator did not notice this at any stage of his work, maybe he’ll even come up with a fancy excuse for this. The fact is, when you look at the scope of missteps and errors made by this bot, that there are no general checks at any point. There is a lot of trying to make it look like it is a respectable source of information by putting a lot of information about climate and terrain around the place in articles about airports, mountains (notice the name, this name pattern is so frequent it hurts), islands (notice that Swedish interwiki removed this information and provided an actual one that is at least related to an island), parks that are actually just nameplates (there are 4150 of them)... If I can nitpick this much of bogus information spread out across the entire wiki, then it is Lsj’s fault alone, not of the people that are disappointed by it. stjn[ru] 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Сириус ли? Some user of EnWP has a fire on its seat because ceb-wiki will become bigger then his dear project? Большинство статей в шведоботопедиях имеют достаточно неплохой формат: пара слов о предмете статьи, заполненная карточка, открываемая карта и ссылки на АИ. Не каждая статья в "нормальной" Википедии дотягивает по качеству до них. В будущем боты поумнеют и смогут писать ещё более подробные статьи на самые разные значимые темы. Можно сказать, что себуанская Википедия - тестовый полигон. Всё равно как энциклопедия она никому не нужна - вряд ли кто-то в мире пользуется себуанским языком - но как полигон вполне сгодится. Всё равно никому не мешает. А в шведской Википедии идёт заливка лишь наиболее подробных статей из того, что может бот, причём все ботостатьи обрабатываются так, что никому не мешают (в т.ч. исключены из Special:Random по кнопке -bot). Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going to translate this mildly xenophobic rant: Most articles in Swedo-botopedias [botopedia is a term used in Slavic communities for WPs populated mainly by bots] have a pretty good format: some words about the topic, filled infobox, a map that can be opened and links to reliable sources. Not every article in ‘normal’ Wikipedia has the same quality. In the future bots will smarten up and would have the ability to write the content that is even more detailed on the many different topics. You can say that Cebuano Wikipedia is a test site. No one needs it anyway, it’s unlikely that anyone in the world uses Cebuano language, but it comes in handy as a test site. Doesn’t harm anyone. But in Swedish Wikipedia you can upload only the most detailed articles that were written by bot, and they are treated in a way that doesn’t interferes with anyone (e.g. they are removed from Special:Random with a -bot button). stjn[ru] 14:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Языком очень даже пользуются, а вот Википедия на себуанском, судя по отсутствию сообщества, которое могло бы пресечь эту профанацию, в настоящий момент самим носителям не нужна. И смысл тратить на неё ресурсы Фонда? The language is very used, but native speakers do not need the Sebuan Wikipedia, if we taking into account the lack of community that could stop this profanation. So why the WF should spend resources on this?--Soul Train (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Фред-Продавец звёзд, у себуанского вдвое больше носителей, чем у шведского. Это второй по распространённости язык на Филиппинах. Le Loy 01:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, because I believe moving it to Incubator would create a more focused environment for gathering active community members and planning, with a "soft" deadline of some months ahead for expected re-launching. Tony (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support for deleting the bot created articles (which are rife with errors as others have highlighted, and as I've seen myself on Australian topics), mild Support for moving to Incubator per Tony's suggestion above. This is an editing community that's been destroyed from the outside and needs a chance to rebuild out of the limelight. Once it has done so, I'd hope any application to return under indigenous casre and management would be viewed favourably. Orderinchaos (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are 21 million people who speak this language, I don't know what proportion currently have internet access, and of those how many have been on the internet long enough to start editing Wikipedia (editing Wikipedia is clearly not an entry level task for new netizens). But Internet access is rapidly expanding in many areas like this and we can expect an influx first of readers and hopefully later editors for this language. There is an underlying issue of bot creation of articles in small Wikipedia communities, I suspect that a proposal to set some rules for bot creation in languages that don't yet have a large enough community to self regulate would be an interesting debate. Hopefully by the time we have such a debate we will be able to say whether the Cebuano experiment was a success or a failure at kickstarting a language version. WereSpielChequers (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The project can (and will) be used as educational base for this 21-million community if properly promoted among them. This can be done in a great number of ways, most of all by massively teaching people how to improve Wikipedia. Government can do this (in many countries they do). This can drive up national intellectual growth, can somehow distract Philippinean people from abusing drugs which is, AFAIK, a big problem there nowadays. Of course it is needed to clean up senseless machine content, but it is unacceptable to completely destroy a draft knowledge base for a whole nation. --Ssr (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The cebwp community is already conducting a major discourse within and outside wikimedia channels about this issue and how to move on from here. Let us respect their consensus building process in whatever course of action they want to pursue. JinJian (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support for closing this Botopedia and banning the author of this absurdity.--Soul Train (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support Strongest ever possible support for, at least, globally blocking the bot and deleting all those absurdic bot-created articles, which are filled with errors, contain Chinese and other non-Cebuano text and are generally unusable spam at best. Then, after the clearance, move the Cebwiki to incubator and allow it to thrive and survive normally, like a neonate on a mother's milk, not on steroids. Роман Беккер (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One wikipedia trashed by bot, listed on English Wikipedia's main page. Other wikipedia trashed by bot, request for deletion. Oh, wait: Spoken by white people. 174.22.237.26 20:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this request will go through, I can assure you that we can expect the investigations in form of RfCs about the other bot-filled Wikipedias, even those that are in languages that are spoken by white people. No one closes Waray for now, but it will be needed to be dealt with, with Swedish and Dutch, after this request succeeds. stjn[ru] 20:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nothing against Cebuano enthusiasts who are willing to maintain their language by writing a serious WP version; but this farce with bot-generated "articles" definitely has to end. At least, the mess should be deleted. --A.Savin (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Community should've been contacted first, rather than this out-of-surprise Request for wiki closure. This doesn't sound like a good way to go. (See the above comment.) — regards, Revi 10:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. As we at svwp has analyzed the bot generated articles from Lsjbot I also want to share our findings. On the 1,2 m on species we have elaborated manually on the ones on birds and mammals, where the seed articles that had been generated was found to be of great value. For the rest we have also found them to be of great value and representing no real problem. Bot generated articles on species also exist on many other versions like Vietnames (I calculated 8 last time). For the 1,8; that was generated från Geonames before Lsjbot was closed on our site a year ago, the situation is not that clear. A lot of quality issues was raised and after the closure a group of around 20 users has worked with this set. Around 16000 has been deleted and more then that has been redirected also to undo a bad article. So at least 5% of the bot generated has ben seen as as bad to best being deleted. We have fixed manually some 10000-20000 articles mostly in countries close by, as Finland and Estonia, but also in countries like Nicariagua, Swiss and Canada. A test sample today of a limited number of articles, showed noone really bad and just few % of questional quality (like swamps in Mexico-swamps are complicted to define ). Yger (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support With all the bot-generated articles, which constitutes over 99% of the total article count, Cebuano Wikipedia has gone from being an encyclopedia to a database, and therefore, it's not meeting its purpose anymore. Most of the articles will not be read by a human within the foreseeable future, which is a deeply unfortunate development and nothing worth striving for in our encyclopedic creation. Quality before quantity. / Reddarn (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment CommentAn argument based on a capacity of any human to read all those articles actually does not hold substance. That same argument is applicable for any language wiki with over a couple thousand article. Shall we close them too just because "no single human is capable of reading all its articles"? -Josefwintzent Libot (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Comment: You misunderstood the argument. Reddarn do no mean that one human have to be able to read all articles. Reddarn means there is high probability that any randomly selected article in Cebuano never ever will be read by a human. I still do not think that is a valid argument, as the value for having an article when it is read, and searched for, is so great that it is worth having every "waste of space article". What is valid is if the articles have a notable subject, have good quality in sources and correctness and describes the subject.--LittleGun (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is nothing inherently wrong in having a bot-only encyclopedia. While some guidance to potential newcomers is always welcome, hopefully one or more people will eventually join and bring some real UGC.--Strainu (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let's go back to the argument of proposer. (1) The proponent of this closure proposal argues that there is virtually no active users but one of the supporters of the proposal said that there are 154 active users contrary to what the proposer believes. So, indeed, there are active users. (2) It seems also that proposer and most of the arguments siding with the closure generally have problems with the bot-created articles (or the bot creator) and not with the Cebuano Wikipedia per se. Thus, the real issue of the proposer is the bot-created articles and closing the Cebuano Wikipedia is not the solution for the issue. (3) The proposer informed the Cebuano Wikipedia editors about the concerns of the bot-created articles on September 23, 2017 and proposed the closure one month after. The proposer did not realize that on October 9, 2017, a Cebuano Wikipedian started to ask the editors on the community portal of the Cebuano Wikipedia about the concerns raised on bot-created articles. The post is in Cebuano and perhaps, the proposer did not understand Cebuano because he proposed the closure ignoring the post. The proposer should have engaged the Cebuano Wikipedians more and avoid this proposal, which is sort of redundant. (4) In conclusion, do not close the Cebuano Wikipedia because there is an active community of editors. Let those active editors decide the fate of the bot-created articles. Actually, they are discussing it now within the Cebuano Wikipedia community portal. --Jojit (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to closure and/or moving to incubator of Cebuano Wikipedia due to the following: (1) although most of the articles are lsjbot-created, these articles are currently being improved with the assistance of Cebuano speaking editors to achieve quality to be of more use to Cebuano speaking people (about 10,030,667 as of 2000); (2) although during the deployment of lsjbot, Cebuano Wikipedia did not seem to have an active editing community to monitor and/or check the resulting bot-created articles, it does have now, that's why the articles are currently being improved; (3) as regular people who understand information more when it is written in their native or mother tongue, Cebuano-speaking people most likely will use Cebuano Wikipedia than Tagalog Wikipedia because they understand the Cebuano language more than they do Tagalog; (4) thanks to information provided by Liang above, moving Cebuano Wikipedia to incubator will lessen its page views thereby making or encouraging people to edit it will be more difficult. Strong support Strong support in retaining Cebuano Wikipedia and letting its editing community improve the said Wikipedia. The improvement is being discussed in their community portal under the heading "Pagtangtang sa mga artikulong nahimo ni Lsjbot". --Billie bb (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Inactivity alone is not a reason for project closure, as has been stated in past discussions. The main criterion for closing a project would be absence of content. Cebuano Wikipedia has the second-largest content of all Wikipedia's (viva Lsjbot!) and potentially reaches 21 million native speakers! --Aliwal2012 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Now there is issue: quality of bot-generated articles in Cebuano language Wikipedia. If this Wikipedia will be closed then another problem appear: absence of Wikipedia for 20 million people. Do you proposing to ban entire nation in Wikipedia just because you don't like quality of articles in language that you even do not understand? Artem.komisarenko (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Relative inactivity is not a reason for closing down a Wikipedia. There is a discussion on cebwp on how to deal with the quality of the bot-created articles, which are better sourced than the majority of articles on many other comparable Wikipedias. Cebuano is a large language. These are three arguments for not to close it down.--Paracel63 (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose — The small number of active users and the high count of bot-generated articles are not valid reasons for project closure, the fate of the bot generated articles and their maintainability are better served through discussions by the Cebuano Wikipedia community, users of that community who actually understand the language. --Lam-ang (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. If bot articles are indeed a problem (a position I tend to disagree with), engage with the bot author or work on developing the community to improve said articles. That's not a reason for outright closure. 😂 (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If large-scale bot-created articles is turning into a problem for the Wikimedia network of wikis, let's handle that as a topic of its own. Not by voting to close wikis. /Julle (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no need to do that. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 17:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'd prefer an expansion of sysop rights on cebwiki to sysops/bureaucrats on other wikis, such as Wikidata, that are adversely affected by Sverker's bot so that they can mass delete appropriately rather than wait for the admins to get around to it. Mahir256 (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for lack of detailed and convincing argument for the closure. Also, the revelation below that the proposer is intentionally vandalizing the project to make a point is particularly disturbing and call the real motive of this proposal and the proposer into question –Ammarpad (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that many of the opponents of the сlosure of the Cebuano Wikipedia have indicated on their personal pages that they are know this language. So, at least someone besides bots are there. But is this community alive? The fact is lsjbot flooded so many articles there, and no one tried to interfere him, says that the Cebuano community is full of anarchy. Everyone can do anything, and there will be no reaction. I believe that closing the Cebuano wiki will be too cruel. But pretending that everything is fine there, will be an unquestionable mistake. This wiki needs an external control since the Cebuanians are not able to control Cebuano wiki. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that no one tried to interfere with lsjbot adding so many articles has nothing to do with anarchy; he's one of the major contributors to the wiki and no one probably felt like arguing the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some animals are more equal... Do not you understand that this is not an argument in favour of the Cebuano Wiki? ~ Чръный человек (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • He who does the work makes the rules. That's pretty much universal for open source or volunteer projects. It gets more complex when Wikis and such get large enough to need leaders, but in young organizations, those leaders come from within, from people who have done the work. On small projects, one person can basically run them; e.g. one person basically runs the Navajo Wikipedia. Why should someone come in and try and shut that person down?--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Opponents of closure often cited the argument about 20 million native speakers. So where are they?! To this day, the rules in the Cebuano Wikipedia are set by two users: Johansson and his bot. I do not mind against bots as such. On the contrary: in the developed language edition of Wikipedia, bots must be used to perform routine work. But when the contribution of people becomes something small and insignificant against the work of bots... the questions and doubts arise. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • The rules in the Cebuano Wikipedia were not set by Lsj and Lsjbot not then and not "to this day". There is an ongoing discussion in the Cebuano Wikipedia's Tubaan on this topic which recalls how this situation came about and how it is going to be resolved by the Cebuano Wikipedia community itself. --Harvzs (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, the only argument here that made real sense was the one about Wikimedia resources, but that was never followed up. The fact that the Cebuano Wikipedia has a lot of low-quality articles is an internal matter. If they would rather have any article on w:Tonopah, Nevada that none at all--and https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonopah looks much more respectable than the other small Wikipedias articles on the subject, however handmade (and unlike some others, lacks intrusive English)--then that's their choice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Don't close this wiki yet! ppl are atm busy fixing it and ordering their articles. Goomba_nr34
  • Oppose closing the Cebuano Wikipedia itself, but I hold Strong support Strong support for taking measures against the bot eruption. I think the best idea is to declare a moratorium (temporary ban) on creating articles with bots, check all the articles, immediately delete articles that are in an unreliably bad state and selectively take measures against other articles, but that will take quite a long time considering the scale of this mess. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We just need better bots. --Zache (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are users who have been editing Cebuano Wikipedia for a long time. Because a bot makes many untested articles, we are not going to close a wiki. A better idea would be to stop the creation of Lsjbot articles so that editors can review everything they can, without deleting anything. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If I recall correctly, cebwiki still have sufficient content even discounting bot edits.C933103 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support. The Cebuano Wikipedia is just a non-informative database and has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. I support the idea, that all bot-generated stubs should be placed in the wikidata, only in this case, the Cebuano Wikipedia can continue to exist, and this rules should concern another doping-Wikipedias (Dutch, Swedisch, Waray, Vietnam etc). This was my opinion. Dulamas (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment I'm worried about the effect of the articles in other projects as stated by Amir above, which oddly enough hasn't been mentioned again. I also think it's important to share Josh Lim's thoughts back in 2016, where he answered why there were some many articles in the project:

The roots of how the Cebuano Wikipedia got so many articles today date back a decade, to a time well before Sverker Johansson and Lsjbot.

In late 2006, we noticed that there was a really big jump in the number of articles on the Cebuano Wikipedia. This was a time when the Tagalog Wikipedia only had a few thousand articles, the other Philippine-language Wikipedias only had a few hundred or a couple thousand, and the vast majority of Filipino Wikipedians at the time were contributing only in English.

When we tried to pinpoint the cause, we discovered that the leading Wikipedian on the project, User:Bentong Isles, wrote a bot to dump articles on all the communes of France (over 50,000) on a Cebuano Wikipedia that back then only had a couple of thousand articles. There is a (kind of) precedent for this: Rambot, written by Derek Ramsey (User:Ram-Man), did this for U.S. towns on the English Wikipedia back in 2002 and 2003. But French communes on a Philippine-language Wikipedia?

The effect was immediate: the Cebuano Wikipedia went from having that couple thousand to becoming the largest Philippine-language Wikipedia in terms of article count. I’m sure Bentong’s motives were and are noble, and although he’s no longer active on Wikipedia we continue to keep in touch, keeping him in the loop on goings-on in the community. However, there were a couple of problems with the massive dump that worried me and a lot of other Wikipedians. These were:

  • Local content was drowned out. Basically, every time you clicked “Random article”, you got an article about a French commune most of the time (if not all the time), and not about a topic relevant to a Cebuano speaker. In Wikipedia circles, the Cebuano Wikipedia was called “the Wikipedia of French communes”, to the local community’s embarrassment (particularly when meeting other Wikipedians abroad), and the Indonesian Wikipedia at one point had a monitoring mechanism for random articles to ensure that there was a variety of articles showing instead of several articles about a singular topic in one sitting.
  • It sparked a numbers war among local Wikipedias. Philippine-language Wikipedias started outdoing one another in terms of chasing number counts, with Waray (something that I explain in more detail here) and Tagalog being the most egregious culprits. Thus there was a focus away from quality towards quantity, with massive numbers of one-line stub articles flooding these three Wikipedias. Luckily for us, the problem was less acute on the Kapampangan, Chavacano and Pangasinan Wikipedias, and Bikol and Ilokano managed to escape it entirely.

Lsjbot’s arrival on the scene didn’t change things much, but it did change the calculus of how articles were added. Before Lsjbot arrived, on the three Wikipedias I mentioned one-line stubs were added by hand, tens or hundreds at a time. Now you had a bot capable of dumping thousands of articles in one sitting, like toys coming off of a fully-automated assembly line, and the community (by then no longer led by Bentong) said yes to it.

A couple of years ago, I and a number of other Filipino Wikipedians asked Sverker Johansson off-wiki (well, on Facebook) as to why he made Lsjbot in the first place. His argument basically boiled down to a pretty simple premise: to entice people to edit with content that is already there.

I think that Lsjbot’s premise is noble, and I really think that Sverker really wants to help the Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias in any way he can. That said, as someone who has been trying to figure out why so few Filipinos contribute to Wikipedia — and even more so why so few Filipinos contribute in languages other than English — I have major issues with how it relates to the reality on the ground, and even more so this obsession with quantity over quality.

The biggest problem I have with the “build it and they will come” approach is that it can be very taxing for small communities to maintain all that content. The Tagalog Wikipedia has the largest community of all the Philippine-language Wikipedias, but we have nowhere near the numbers the English Wikipedia has in terms of manpower.

Thanks to a number of dumps over the years, we today have around 65,000 articles, but many of the articles dumped onto the project haven’t been updated and probably won’t be touched until we grow the community beyond its current size. We are looking at ways of addressing this problem, including expanding stubs when we see one, but one upside to avoiding the dumping on the Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias is that we have a higher depth count: a feat only outmatched by the Ilokano Wikipedia (which has one super-prolific editor who takes his time writing articles).

Imagine what would happen if we had over three million articles, as is the case with Cebuano today, and only ten editors to maintain it all. It would be a gargantuan task, with us being overwhelmed with all the new articles that we’d have to maintain. This would take away our capacity to expand on topics relevant to local speakers (ergo, topics related to the Philippines), and it’s a very big reason why we refused to sign on to Sverker’s project or the dumps by other Wikipedians that have preceded it. (At one point, we nearly held a vote on whether or not all the stubs should be deleted to “normalize” the situation.)

This may sound selfish, but who ultimately has to deal with the mass of articles being left behind? The core community does. Anecdotal observation over the years has led me to conclude that the Cebuano Wikipedia never really got the mass of editors Lsjbot promised would come once it did its work. Now Sverker to his credit has also led editing workshops in Cebu (with and without support from Wikimedia Philippines), but one thing that I and others have come to grapple with over the years is how we can make Wikipedia editors stay and actually become Wikipedians. Is it a cultural thing that Filipinos don’t want to contribute? Do they think the learning curve is too steep or that Wikipedia’s rigor is too much for them to handle? Must we resort to giving them incentives (short of paying them, as paid editing is anathema for the Wikimedia movement) so they can stick around? We’re still trying to find answers to these questions.

That said, I’m sure of one thing: dumping millions of articles to attract editors hasn’t worked and isn’t working. There has to be a better way, and we have to work together to find that way forward, come hell or high water.[1]

That being said, and for the reasons mentioned before, I vote with a Strong support Strong support the deletion of the bot created articles, as it seems very unlikely that their quality will ever be improved, but I also ask to be careful with the deletion of the project per se.--Jamez42 (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment This discussion has somewhat lost focus. What started out as a discussion about closing the Cebuano Wikipedia has become a discussion about what to do with the bot articles. I still oppose closure per my statement above (closure is too drastic an action for this situation), but here are my thoughts on the bot articles:

The articles created by Lsjbot can be grouped into two categories: articles about species and articles about geography.

The articles about species are mostly fine, with their only problem being that they are stubs. I would leave those alone, but if we must delete those, perhaps we can consider moving them to Wikispecies? After all, someone above did say that Cebuano Wikipedia is nothing but a "database," which is what Wikispecies is - a species database.

The geography articles, however, are a mess. You have articles about non-notable geographical features (random dams, rivers, parks) and duplicate articles (for some reason, every German city has separate articles for it as a state/district capital and as a municipality, or as a city and a municipality). Here is really where something has to be done. For this, I would recommend deleting every geography article that does not exist in other languages (i.e. has nothing under "Languages" on the sidebar). That way, the stubs that do exist in other languages can be expanded with translations.

Despite the problems that exist with the bot articles, the community at Cebuano Wikipedia is already discussing a solution, so even if external action needs to be taken, that action should not be closure. DraconicDark (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposer's vandalism on the Cebuano Wikipedia edit

The proposer himself made vandalism an issue in his proposal so calling this ad hominem isn't accurate. The proposer cited as one of the reasons why the Wikipedia should be closed that there are no active users other than the bot, and "a few vandals". It is dishonest for him to vandalize the project himself then use his own vandalism as one reason to shut down the Wikipedia and return to the Cebuano Wikipedia to do additional vandalism. This topic is very much relevant since it goes to why his "vandalism" argument is unacceptable: he's doing some of the vandalism himself. And the fact that his vandalism has been dealt with also is pertinent to disprove the assertion that there is no system for the community to exercise control over the project. --Harvzs (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am dismayed at the vigilant crusade the proposer had. Looking at his history, he has proposed numerous projects for closing. Several of which were rejected. for example, Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Lojban Wikipedia 2 and Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Taraskievica Wikipedia for extremely petty and unkempt reasons. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 21:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Artix Kreiger I completely agree. In fact, Langcom rejected Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Lojban Wikipedia 2 because, "Proposal made by someone who seems to see making these proposals as a sport." The proposer has a history of making bad faith closure proposals, so the point of the proposer's vandalism should at least be considered when making a decision about this proposal. DraconicDark (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
if you go here, and go to the bottom, a staff member said he was blocked on numerous wikis. unfortunate. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 16:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Cebuano_Wikipedia&oldid=26027140"