Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | português do Brasil | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | संस्कृतम् | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

The problem with mg.wiktEdit

I noticed that you created the Small wiki audit page, so I thought you might be interested in a known problem with a small wiki. The Malagasy Wiktionary has over six million entries, but gets very few human edits. Almost all of the pages are created by one, frequently active bot run by the only active admin (and editor), Jagwar. These bot entries are misleadingly bad, and probably at least half of them are incorrect; the bot tries to copy definitions from other Wiktionaries and automatically translate them, but usually only picks one word out of the definition, so (to give an example created today) mg:wikt:cirugía plástica (Spanish for "plastic surgery") is just translated as "surgery" in Malagasy. There are also many thousands of definitionless Malagasy entries, whose definitions were removed due to massive copyright violation that Jagwar did many years ago. It has proven impossible to convince Jagwar that his bot is doing much more harm than good by making mg.wikt completely unusable, but as he is the only active editor, there is no community that can reign him in. I expect this kind of problem is much more common than the sco.wiki disaster, but it isn't obvious how to deal with it. What do you think? Please ping me in any responses. Metaknowledge (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Metaknowledge, I have been aware of Jagwar's bot for a while actually, but thanks for reminding me. The page Small wiki audit/Queries/Prolific article creators suggests that there are at least a few other wikis where one bot has created a disproportionate number of articles, although I can't say how the quality of their output compares to Jagwar's bot. (Plus there's obviously Lsjbot, which is excluded from the previous table because those wikis are too large.) I think it would be best to bring the issue up on the Talk:Small wiki audit page. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, Lsjbot usually produces correct content, unless Jagwar's bot. This is a case where we actually know that harm is being done, but I have to admit I didn't know anybody outside the Wiktionary community even cared enough to notice! Metaknowledge (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work.Edit

Dear [insert name],

there is nothing to say about me really. As a (former) steward I've successfully solved a number of difficult issues on various wikis, giving those projects the chance to flourish and become important parts of their own societies. But now I see that while we all are living in 2020, you are living in 4040 at least. These aren't Just Some Random Findings gathered during research in Mexico. No, I have seen this from your Global user pages which make an explosive use of Technology.

I hope the rest of your week goes well, and that the subsequent weeks will go even better.

Best regards, --MF-W 00:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Greetings,
I agree: the Template translation experiment is a Success!
I joined the Wikipedia project because I was convinced that it rests on one of the fundamental values of humanity: freedom. I went back to its origins, I discovered its sister projects and also the Wikimedia Foundation which host all those projects.. Beyond that, I could also understand that this is a vertiginous growing movement. A movement without linguistic and social barriers. That good and even good but in theary.
I miss you. I am Extremely happy to hear from you. When we are inspired, we play and laugh together. It’s not about one big party, it’s about making space for new ideas and new connections, making space for creativity. Inquisitiveness arises when we’re having fun. It’s ok to wonder, to ponder. We don’t need to take ourselves too seriously.
Thank you! PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Moosh drives like a horn because his tie is not more than a crablike queefish. Cats dubbed with strings, a horror diet clowned about a forshipmore then skies linked a dribbloo. Best, -Mh7kJ (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Mh7kJ: A hactor with three queefish, who darrows spinnoofs... A hinextricable combodoosh, smashing dog with burnt cards. Regards, PiRSquared17 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
It warms my heart to see so many qualified Program and community Leaders engaged here. This is Functional and beautiful math for everyone. Blargacharg a blargblargh. --MF-W 00:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our communities. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission. This is a commitment to people and respect. It’s about getting things $emoji. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

AccusationsEdit

Would you please substantiate your accusations at [1]? James Salsman (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@James Salsman: Replied. (Btw, I don't think my comment qualifies an "attack", unless all criticisms of user behavior qualify as such, so I have edited the section heading here. I hope you do not mind this edit.) PiRSquared17 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: I have been blocked on scowiki due to accusations of doxxing for information which was in non-oversighed edit history and redirects. I will take up my complaints with other members of the small wiki audit project. I am extremely disappointed in how you have joined the pile-on, treating me far worse than the people responsible for the problem there. James Salsman (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@James Salsman: I do apologize if you feel that I've mistreated you by !voting to support your partial block on scowiki, but I stand by what I wrote. Initially I was pretty sympathetic to you and thought you had valuable contributions to make (e.g. in the RfC talk page section about you, and in MJL's section above). I still think you have good intentions. In fact, I don't even really disagree with the draftification idea, and I think your list of suspected Gaelic pages was a cool thing to look into. But your behavior on discussion pages continues to be disruptive despite warnings, as MJL and others pointed out during the partial ban discussion. If you would like to offer a rebuttal, feel free to write one here and see if you can sway my mind. If AG was still doing the same thing as he was before, ignoring other people's criticism, I might support blocking him too. But the difference is that he apologized and changed his behavior when the issues were pointed out to him.
If you would like to appeal your block, which was for completely unrelated reasons, the proper channel would be your talk page on scowiki, and the proper people to ask would be scowiki's local admins. Also, it seems impolite to link to MJL's personal information even after they have made it clear (through their revdel and comment on scowiki) that they would like to distance their account from it. Your point that it's not oversighted is true, and certainly makes it a less egregious case of outing than it otherwise would have been, but I still fail to see why you would have brought it up at all when it had no relevance to the discussion. Anyway, that's something you should bring up in your unblock request on scowiki, not here. Best regards, PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Leave me alone James. Take down your recent tweet at me and drop the stick. I was already tired of your constant badgering, but trying to w:en:wp:OUT using info you got from another wiki is where I draw the line. This type of thing shouldn't be tolerated. –MJLTalk 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I second this. That tweet is super inappropriate. If you want to demonstrate that you're acting in good faith, you should take it down. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: I took it down as soon as I saw this. Why didn't either of you ping me? Why didn't you say you wanted it down when you replied to it on Twitter? This is not my talk page, and you didn't ask me anywhere else as far as I can see. How did you expect me to notice the request? This is either a very substantial lack of competence or an attempt to paint me as unresponsive to the request. For shame, both of you! James Salsman (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@James Salsman: You took down the Tweet, and that's all I cared about.
If there is a lack of competence in this interaction somewhere, then I'm certain no one will need me to help you find it. As far as I am concerned, we have no further business with one another. –MJLTalk 01:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@James Salsman: Thanks for taking it down. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021: InvitationEdit

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)