This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.
Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.
Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
January 2020
Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.
A new Pywikibot release dropped support for Python 3.4, and it was expected that support for Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates. Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022.
On February 1, some concerns were raised about ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator Magnus Manske (who originally coded the Phase II software|precursor of MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved.
In March, a long discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy by Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons -- API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code).
A discussion on the bot noticeboard, "Re-examination of ListeriaBot", was started by Barkeep49, who pointed out repeated operation outside the scope of its BRFA (i.e. editing pages in mainspace, and adding non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18.
Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.
May 2020
We heard you like bots, so we made a bot that reports the status of your bots, so now you can use bots while you use bots
MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status.
In July 2017, Headbomb made a proposal that a section of the Wikipedia:Dashboard be devoted to bots and technical issues. In November 2019, Lua code was written superseding Legobot's tasks on that page, and operator Legoktm was asked to stop them so that the new code could be deployed. After no response to pings, a partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored.
On June 7, RexxS blocked Citation bot for disruptive editing, saying it was "still removing links after request to stop". A couple weeks later, a discussion on the bots noticeboard was opened, saying "it is a widely-used and useful bot, but it has one of the longest block logs for any recently-operating bot on Wikipedia". While its last BRFA approval was in 2011, its code and functionality had changed dramatically since then, and AntiCompositeNumber requested that BAG require a new BRFA. Maintainer AManWithNoPlan responded that most blocks were from years ago (when it lacked a proper test suite), and problems since then had mostly been one-off errors (like a June 2019 incident in which a LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors).
David Tornheim opened a discussion about whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed: Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so".
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
I saw you close a messy RFC. Are you up for another but way down the difficulty scale? This affects a RSP entry (which dictates sourcing reqs. in many articles) and I cannot convince any admin to do the needful. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: I participated in that discussion so I should not close it and am uncomfortable closing a review as "overturn and reclose" if I'm unable to actually put it into effect. I'm sorry I can't be of more direct help. I'd be willing to ask around for a closer; who else have you asked? — Wug·a·po·des 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I missed your participation; apologies. And I will certainly appreciate your help at finding a closing-admin. I had made a request at AN for closure and also, requested Bishonen at her t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Category counts are sometimes wrong. They will now be completely recounted at the beginning of every month. [1]
Problems
A code-change last week to fix a bug with Live Preview may have caused problems with some local gadgets and user-scripts. Any code with skin-specific behaviour for vector should be updated to also check for vector-2022. A code-snippet, global search, and example are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 February. It will be on all wikis from 10 February (calendar).
Posted 2 days ago, Nexpo curates another eerie series of analogue TV instructional videos in the vain of LOCAL58, except this one is over twice the length (2.5 hrs). Personally, I'm loving the long form. Anyway: Gemini and the End of the World.El_C 23:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Purging a category page with fewer than 5,000 members will now recount it completely. This will allow editors to fix incorrect counts when it is wrong. [2]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 February. It will be on all wikis from 17 February (calendar).
In the AbuseFilter extension, the rmspecials() function has been updated so that it does not remove the "space" character. Wikis are advised to wrap all the uses of rmspecials() with rmwhitespace() wherever necessary to keep filters' behavior unchanged. You can use the search function on Special:AbuseFilter to locate its usage. [3]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
At Wikipedias, all new accounts now get the Growth features by default when creating an account. Communities are encouraged to update their help resources. Previously, only 80% of new accounts would get the Growth features. A few Wikipedias remain unaffected by this change. [5]
You can now prevent specific images that are used in a page from appearing in other locations, such as within PagePreviews or Search results. This is done with the markup class=notpageimage. For example, [[File:Example.png|class=notpageimage]]. [6]
There has been a change to the HTML of Special:Contributions, Special:MergeHistory, and History pages, to support the grouping of changes by date in the mobile skin. While unlikely, this may affect gadgets and user scripts. A list of all the HTML changes is on Phabricator.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 February. It will be on all wikis from 24 February (calendar).
Future changes
The software to play videos and audio files on pages will change soon on all wikis. The old player will be removed. Some audio players will become wider after this change. The new player has been a beta feature for over four years. [7][8]
Toolforge's underlying operating system is being updated. If you maintain any tools there, there are two options for migrating your tools into the new system. There are details, deadlines, and instructions on Wikitech. [9]
Hello
I would like to know how can I post or share my lesson --Avuyile mango (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Avuyile mango, thanks for the question! Could you say more about what kind of lesson you're trying to contribute? In general, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so you probably will need to post it elsewhere. We have sister websites which do accept courses and books, so if you could tell me more I could try and point you to one of those. — Wug·a·po·des 22:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I find myself editing biographies occasionally as these tend to feel the most biased or contrived via PR companies. In terms of language I’ve had some trouble determining Wikipedia’s policies. Language like “resigned” vs “resigned in disgrace” was a recent issue I had, I believe the latter was a better description for a particular individual who resigned under scandalous circumstances but I can see how it could be argued that this is loaded language. My concern is that by dropping the term “disgrace” the article would fail to capture the reasons under which the particular resignation took place. So my question is how should I go about using language that by some could be seen as loaded, but where there is a wide variety of sources that show this to be an apt description? How do I avoid coming across as biased? --Sadke4 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Sadke4, apologies for taking so long on this, I thought I had replied but it turns out I got an error that prevented me from saving it. In general, we prefer to write in a way that avoids value-laden labels like "disgraced". Instead we describe the facts in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources and then let readers come to their own conclusions. Where a non-neutral label is frequently used by independent reliable sources, we tend to attribute the label in prose. As an example: Following the allegations, Reliable News Network reported that the CEO "resigned in disgrace". This makes it clear that some other organization is describing the situation in that way rather than it being Wikipedia's own characterization. Hopefully that helps, but let me know if you have other questions and I'll get to them much faster! — Wug·a·po·des 22:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
2022 Newxpo
Posted 2 days ago, Nexpo curates another eerie series of analogue TV instructional videos in the vain of LOCAL58, except this one is over twice the length (2.5 hrs). Personally, I'm loving the long form. Anyway: Gemini and the End of the World.El_C 23:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@El C: gosh it's really been two weeks huh? Recovered from the archives to say I still haven't seen this yet, but it's on my "watch later" list. I'm excited to see the increase in long-form content and from the view count it seams to be doing really well. I hope to get to it once life slows down and I'm in the right headspace to appreciate it. Right now though I'm on like three committees that have all decided to ramp-up simultaneously so the paperwork has given me enough nightmare fuel for a bit. — Wug·a·po·des 22:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I get it. My own watch later que can probably fill a small library. Anyway, I originally found the Gemini arc not to have been on par with LOCAL58, even though the artistry is of the same quality. But as the story progressed I got more and more into it. Let me know your impressions once you find the time/constitution to watch it! El_C 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Wugapodes, thanks for closing many large, complex, and controversial discussions over the past 2 years. I have watched your work while lurking on Wikipedia, and it is amazing to me that you have closed so many contentious discussions thoughtfully and fairly. I hope you continue to resolve complex disputes well during your term at ArbCom. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:50AB:FFB9:DD80:EFC5 (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Question on linguistics
Hello, Wugapodes. This isn't strictly related to Wikipedia, but I had seen this article for the second time in a few months (I believe due to serendipitous visits to Amire80's userpage), and I can't think of any other regular linguist contributors, so went to you to hear your opinion. It's been nearly 15 years since it was published. The impression I got from the (fascinating) article was that the view was innovative and controversial, so in Wikipedia's eyes it would be considered fringe. Would you say that is still true, given your experience in the field? Sdrqaz (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Sdrqaz, my understanding of this debate is that Everett's argument was taken up, often uncritically or incorrectly, by the popular press whose characterization of the scholarly debate was more sensational than the actual debate. This led to a discussion in 2009 published in the journal Language which from my view largely settled the issue within the field. The first paper, co-authored by Andrew Nevins, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues argued that Everett's claims about the language structure are incorrect which undermines his wider claims about language universals. In the second paper, published alongside the Nevins, et al. paper, Everett defends his analysis of the linguistic structure of Pirahã and specifies his claim: Everett's analysis of Pirahã (if correct) falsifies the claim that recursion is an essential property of human language (Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch 2002). In a third paper, published in the following issue, Nevins, et al. respond to Everett's defense, and they particularly focus on how the media's portrayal of Everett's claims is different from Everett's claims and evidence. While the debate has simmered, my perspective is that the field has come to the conclusion that (1) popular media coverage overstates and sensationalizes what is actually a niche debate in syntax and (2) Everett's argument is not adequately supported by the Pirahã data. This can be seen in the literature from around 2012 and 2013 when Everett published the book Language: the Cultural Tool. In 2013, for example, N.J. Enfield published a commentary on Everett's book in the the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute where Enfield covered commentary on Everett's previous work and then claimed that the new book similarly makes claims that go beyond what the evidence supports. With all of that said, I don't work on syntax or Amazonian languages, so I'm not familiar with recent debates or how widespread support for Everett's theory is. I will say that a lot of this debate is political and interpersonal drama within the field of linguistics, which complicates things.All that said, for purposes of WP:FRINGE, I think Everett's theories should generally be discussed as they're incredibly notable, but need to be placed in context (see #Notability versus acceptance). It's a view held by a minority within the field (probably, this is just my perception), but it was (and is) taken seriously as a legitimate scholarly debate. The main issue is that popular press publications like the New York Times and the New Yorker generally overstate and sensationalize the claims in ways that are fringe compared to the actual scholarly debate. Everett's claims are very specific, but popular stories tend to frame it as a general refutation of Chomsky's theory of syntax and universal grammar rather than a refutation of a specific claim he and others made in 2002.Anyway, thanks for the interesting question, and hopefully the sources help. There are other linguists with varying activity levels, and we're working to get more. The Linguistic Society of America's Committee on Gender Equity in Linguistics is hosting an edit-a-thon in March that I'm helping organize. I'll mention this to participants and maybe we can get more perspectives! — Wug·a·po·des 00:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks like I have a lot of reading to do this weekend... Thank you, Wugs, for the thorough response. Hopefully your participants can shed more light on the matter and all the best on the event. As an aside, while I have you, prior to ACE2021 I was hoping that you'd be able to rectify one of the issues with representation we have, as one of the two best closers we have on the project (the other one thankfully acquiesced a couple of years ago). Something you've hopefully thought about. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: Certainly something I've thought about, but I'm still too young for a sinecure![FBDB] More seriously, my current opinion is that I'll volunteer if there's a need but for now there doesn't seem to be one. Crat chats are uncommon; RfAs get closed in a relatively timely manner; BN is rarely (if ever) backlogged. Meanwhile my arbcom, WMF grants, and meatspace work leave me with little time to actually be useful on the crat depth chart. If any of that changes---the community gives crats more work, RfAs get out of hand, or I start looking for more work---then I'd reconsider, but for now I'm content with the kind of work I'm doing. I appreciate the consideration and compliment though; I find closing discussions fun, so I'm glad my strange leisure activity can be so helpful. — Wug·a·po·des 08:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I did think that it's viewed as too fusty a role and I agree that more bureaucrats aren't needed for straight RfA closures and BAG requests, but I do think they're needed for the (admittedly rare) 'crat chats, be it the informal ones for resysop requests or the formal ones for RfAs. Frankly, even if you weren't able to contribute to day-to-day bureaucrat tasks (saying that closing RfAs is "day-to-day" is a stretch, mildly) and were only available for such discussions, it would be strongly beneficial for the project since those are the tasks that most need new perspectives, given the unrepresentative nature of the team (as I touched on above) and the varying levels of (in)activity among many of them. But thanks for entertaining my prodding . Sdrqaz (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Mentors using the Growth Mentor dashboard will now see newcomers assigned to them who have made at least one edit, up to 200 edits. Previously, all newcomers assigned to the mentor were visible on the dashboard, even ones without any edit or ones who made hundred of edits. Mentors can still change these values using the filters on their dashboard. Also, the last choice of filters will now be saved. [11][12]
The user group oversight was renamed suppress. This is for technical reasons. You may need to update any local references to the old name, e.g. gadgets, links to Special:Listusers, or uses of NUMBERINGROUP.
Problems
The recent change to the HTML of tracking changes pages caused some problems for screenreaders. This is being fixed. [13]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 March. It will be on all wikis from 3 March (calendar).
Future changes
Working with templates will become easier. Several improvements are planned for March 9 on most wikis and on March 16 on English Wikipedia. The improvements include: Bracket matching, syntax highlighting colors, finding and inserting templates, and related visual editor features.
If you are a template developer or an interface administrator, and you are intentionally overriding or using the default CSS styles of user feedback boxes (the classes: successbox, messagebox, errorbox, warningbox), please note that these classes and associated CSS will soon be removed from MediaWiki core. This is to prevent problems when the same class-names are also used on a wiki. Please let us know by commenting at phab:T300314 if you think you might be affected.
Hello. I am here to tell you that your WP:BOLD merge for the Okhtyrka vacuum bomb attack was contested and reverted. Feel free to open a discussion on the talk page if your disagree and let the community decide if it should be redirected! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: I recommend you read the policies and guidelines I linked to in my edit summary. Particularly WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Creating multiple stubs for the same topic is not a good idea and generally against policy. You've created an additional page that needs to be updated and patrolled by administrators based on initial, unsubstantiated reports. That should go in the main article and only spun out when there is a good reason. We're supposed to expand stubs, so spinning out a paragraph is unhelpful. I would prefer that you revert yourself and contribute to Battle of Okhtyrka, otherwise my plan is to nominate the page at AFD for failing WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. — Wug·a·po·des 01:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I do not see where you get WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The vacuum bomb was confirmed by the Ukrainian ambassador (so crystal is eliminated as an option), and if you haven't checked the sources, I have multiple, international news organizations for sources. No chance of it being deleted at AfD, though, if you want, you can try for a merge proposal. I feel like this will be more relevant once ICC starts listing war crimes, since this was a war crime (Per Ukrainian President). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip:I feel like this will be more relevant once ICC starts listing war crimes That's what crystal is about. You're speculating on the significance of this event based on routine reporting about one person's claims. Your claim that this is a war crime is sourced to that same individual and isn't something to speculate on. We're not a newspaper and we don't create a new page for every event that happens. As both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT point out, an event being widely reported on by news organizations at the time of the event isn't a reliable indicator of notability, and you have the additional problems of explaining why a split is even necessary. Notability doesn't guarantee a standalone article, see Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages. Again, I think you should reconsider whether this is useful, especially since you've made five reverts today on that page today (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in violation of WP:3RR. — Wug·a·po·des 02:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I see a different view point from you, so I encourage you, once again, to start a merge proposal and let the community decide. It isn't that difficult to start one if you really think it should be merged. Also, please don't try to "threaten/urge" me with the 3RR, that seems very low and honestly more like a personal attack than a true "urge". If you really want me to revert it, I will, however, I will start a split proposal on the talk page right afterward due to my different view point. Honestly, all the pain could be prevented if you just start a merge proposal. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
P.S. Actually, since you are using that 3RR "urge", I will go ahead and follow the plan I stated above. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Update - I have merged the content. Though please understand, that I do not respect you as an editor for that "urge/personal attack" toward me. I respect your contributions to Wikipedia, but for someone to try to use that as a "urge/threat" is too low for me. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: I'm not trying to threaten you, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. I thought a formal warning on your talk page would be far more confrontational, so I preferred saying it to you here. The fact of the matter is that you are edit warring to keep the page in a particular state. The merge/split decision is only one aspect of that larger issue, and I thought you should be made aware of it. — Wug·a·po·des 02:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh my bad. I just saw you are an admin. I do appreciate the soft warning for the 3RR violation. Sorry that I interpreted that as an attack and I appreciate the alert about that. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: No worries, and I do feel bad that I came off that way. It's a rough time, and I can only imagine the kinds of editors you've been dealing with. I could have been clearer about my points and done a better job separating the 3RR note and the content stuff. Mixing those was a bad idea in hindsight. For the future, I hope you don't worry about challenging administrators, policy forbids administrators from using their tools to win content disputes. In my mind we're two editors having a normal discussion, and I would actually prefer to just have the discussion as equals.As for the merge/split discussion, I'll go comment there with my thoughts. Sorry about this misunderstanding, but hopefully we can come to a consensus. — Wug·a·po·des 02:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
All good. No hard feeling. Thank you for everything you do on Wikipedia. You seem to be one of the "behind the scenes" admins, and that goes a long way to improving Wikipedia. Thank you and enjoy the cookie. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Mohsin Talat creating page
the page about Pakistani drama director Mohsin Talat is necessary , why you redirect a far relate topic Tere Mere Beech.
Kindly don't create redirect and allow the proper information page about person Mohsin Talat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooruddin2020 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Nooruddin2020, I didn't create that redirect. The redirect was created in 2019 by the now-blocked Ghazal Pervaiz; I added categories to the page soon afterwards. You removed the redirect a few days ago and created an article. Onel5969 undid your change citing our inclusion criteria. I would recommend writing a draft first to get more feedback and to make sure that the subject qualifies for an article. — Wug·a·po·des 19:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
Mr.Wugapodes, the static ip address that you blocked for a year is back doing disruptive editing again. 172.58.188.128 he is using now. Can you please check it out. Thank you Doriden (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doriden: thanks for reporting this. Drmies has blocked the IP range for 6 months, but if you see more disruption let either of us know. @Drmies, looking through my talk page archive, this person has also used an IPv6 device to evade previous IPv4 blocks. The /64 blocks I placed are still active, but something to keep an eye out for if you come across this issue again. — Wug·a·po·des 20:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Wugapodes, its the same person from several months ago who is blocked for a year. Yes I can see the 6 months block but the other ip address he is using is only blocked for 31 hours. That one is 172.58.188.128. As soon as the 31 hours expire he'll be at it again. Thank you very much for your assistance, Doriden (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry Wugapodes, the ip address that he is using now that is blocked for only 31 hours is 172.58.188.231 sorry for my error. Yes, this ip address is blocked only for 31 hours and started about 2 am eastern time. He will definitely be back at it soon from this other ip address. Thank you and sorry for my mix up of the ip address. Doriden (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doriden: Thanks for clarifying. The way IP blocks work can be confusing, but that IP is also blocked for 6 months. The simple explanation is that IPs can have two simultaneous blocks which is the case here. IP ...231 is blocked for 31 hours, but it is also covered by the 6-month range block that Drmies placed. Once the 31 hour block expires, the ...231 IP still won't be able to edit because of the second, longer block. You can see this by looking at the contributions for the IP range Drmies blocked. At the top is ...231, so it's part of that 6 month block. — Wug·a·po·des 20:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
This is it, I'm going back and forth making mistakes and getting mixed up. Its 172.58.128.188 that is blocked for 31 hours. I'm so sorry for the my mix up. Doriden (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Again I apologize for getting it wrong. This is the correct one 172.58.188.128 that is the OP address that is blocked for only 31 hours. He was using it last night then switched to the one that is blocked for six months. I really apologize, you must think I'm a nut. So sorry. But this is the correct ip address that is blocked for only 31 hours by drmies. Doriden (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Understood, I really am sorry for getting the ip addresses mixed up three times. You must think that I am a bumbling fool. Thank you so much for your assistance, I won't disturb you anymore. Doriden (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doriden: No worries, IP addresses are confusing, and you're not the first to mix the numbers up. Thanks for clarifying and keeping an eye out. Let me know if you need anything in the future. — Wug·a·po·des 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again Mr.Wugapodes, Doriden (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
_shown_in_her_laboratory_in_1947.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped_to_40%25).jpg){kind=small}
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 February. It will be on all wikis from 10 February (calendar).
In the AbuseFilter extension, the 
. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
