• I'm really happy this article mentioned the terrible quality of the tabloid websites that have been reporting on this issue. Every time one of them said something along the lines of "Teenage brony moderator on the Scottish Wikipedia", I cringed a little. One outlet even called Meta-Wiki "Wikipedia's Supreme Court" which is just wrong on so many levels. They at least fixed it when I emailed them. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reading the story about the Scots Wikipedia makes me feel very sorry for the individual concerned. It sounds like he was acting in good faith, and I can't even imagine what it feels like to commit ten years of your life to a Wikipedia project, amassing 169,000 edits (way more than I have here at enwiki), thinking you're doing good work, only to find out that it's been counterproductive. And then be subjected to harassment and abuse by the online community to boot. I hope he is getting the support and help that he may need right now.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for mentioning this @Puzzledvegetable:. Every time I saw "Scottish Wikipedia" it was just a reminder that lots of people have no clue what's happening. As the editor-in-chief here, when this came out just a few days ago, I despaired of ever understanding the whole event, or of even finding a reporter who could handle it. @SnowFire: then volunteered and did a superb job. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smallbones: Scottish Wikipedia is my favorite disambiguation page that I have ever made. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amakuru: Your support for my colleague is appreciated during these difficult times. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is this a Dunning-Kruger effect with the editor involved, or perhaps was that editor so eager to wrack up edits and be an admin somewhere that they perpetuated a fraud? From what I've read, the editor involved is only sorry they got caught. Fact is, Wikipedia and its sister projects don't exist to provide knowledge. They exist for the self-satisfaction of its editors and W?T figured out how to make money off that collective preoccupation. You can find proof of this in all the mis-guided efforts some editors have made to cheer up the fraudster because if they cared about knowledge, it'd be torches and pitchforks time. I hope that the public becomes more vocally unhappy with what's been going on with Wikimedia projects. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can find proof of this in all the mis-guided efforts some editors have made to cheer up the fraudster because if they cared about knowledge, it'd be torches and pitchforks time. is an immensely depressing line to read from an editor I generally respect. Torches and pitchforks wouldn't bring any more knowledge to Wikipedia, whereas a kinder community to GF mistakes might - even if your sole efforts were pragmatic. I would like to feel that endeavouring to be kind to someone who has been horrifically attacked (by some truly vile comments, statements, insinuations, and worse) on other platforms, is the sign of a positive community, not one existing for its own self-satisfaction. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I don't think making tens of thousands of fraudulent articles to be a "good faith mistake." I'm against the uninformed trying to pitch-in and clearly the editor responsible now is, too. While being kind might have its advantages, what was done here is a crime against knowledge on par with literal theft. Pat yourself on the back for being kind but don't claim a positive community is more important than being responsible stewards of knowledge. I imagine it's easy for fellow co-conspirators to identify with the fraudster, in over their head, as opposed to caring about the reader. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The user fundamentally wasn't a fraudster. If you feel the need to insult them, call them a fool, an idiot, naive, whatever. They did something stupid. But there's absolutely no evidence that they did it from anything other than the best intentions. SnowFire (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @SnowFire: what reasons are for you to say that? He looks like an obvious LTA troll. EllenCT (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @EllenCT: - I, as well as others who share this belief, looked through this user's contribution history as well as other things they posted on the Internet. Doesn't fit the troll profile. You can find a post from this user on Reddit 2 years ago - long before the current hubbub started - very earnestly talking about how his hobby was reading Wikipedia articles and translating them into Scots, and he learned something new every day, it was very inspiring, etc. He never misused admin tools. Also, trolls tend to want to provoke a reaction. This was a lonely crusade - nobody was reading Scots Wikipedia, almost nobody was responding, especially compared to the insane amount of effort put in (creating, on average, 7-9 articles a day or so!). It much more matches a well-meaning editor with zero self-awareness who was never told by his parents / education basic guidelines of learning a language. SnowFire (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @SnowFire: do you have a link to the Reddit post, please? I started to look though his scowiki talk page history, and it doesn't really support your description of him. From beginning to end, he threatened native speakers who told him he was screwing up, whether they were polite about it or confrontational, and he claims that some apparently off-wiki native speakers approved his work. Isn't that a bald faced lie? Doesn't it imply he knew what was going on and was being deliberately deceptive every step of the way? EllenCT (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • And as a more general thought - I remember an English WP editor who contributed some truly awfully-written game-guide like material back in 2007 or so. Material bad enough probably Fandom / Wikia wouldn't want it nowadays, written as if a child wrote it... which a child probably DID write it. Needless to say, it was AFD'd, despite the impressive amount of work that went into writing just these 3 game-guidey articles or so. I highly doubt that 2007 user was a troll, though, despite writing articles in the style of an extended text message. Scots Wikipedia is a bit of a what-if scenario of "what if an editor with poor language skills like that didn't have their articles AFD'd, and continued to produce crap for 7 years thinking it was helping?" SnowFire (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statement is self-contradictory. Yes, this is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. However, that's precisely what makes it tragic and not torches and pitchforks: the user genuinely didn't know better. There's a difference between "someone vandalizes the garden and ruins the plants" and "someone ruins the plants because the water can they were using was actually filled with kerosene". I'm also baffled at your read on that diff: the user is obviously devastated that what they thought was helping wasn't. How is that "only sorry that they got caught?" They said before in other diffs that they're sorry they wasted 7 years of their life on something useless, which is a punishment far more terrifying than most of us will ever face in our lifetimes. SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Personally I edit Wikipedia because I get satisfaction out of it, but I also fully expect that what I'm doing is in some small way useful for the world. The two are not mutually contradictory. I imagine the same would hold for the editor in question at sco.wiki, although to be honest part of the satisfaction for me is also in gaining recognition that you're doing the right sort of thing, e.g. through DYK/GAN/FAC, something that was presumably absent in the Scots case. For me the question isn't so much "how did he get away with it", or about beating up the one editor, but rather to ask whether these sparsely edited small-language Wikis are actually worth keeping around at all. As a strong proponent of WP:WORLDWIDE, and the promotion of African topics in particular, I can see the attraction of them. But if they lack the ability to self-regulate their content as enwiki does, then it might be that the entire Wiki does more harm than good... Food for thought, anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There were warning signs about the Scots Wiki as early as 2014. The damage was mostly one person's doing, but this is still a community failure. It exemplifies a serious problem we have with our small language wikis, and only makes me further question their usefulness. I think we need a paradigm shift on viewing how and why we create these small wikis. One of the key reasons large wikis like the English, German, and French are successful is because they are underpinned by large language communities (obviously) and are primary languages. That is, people are formally educated in these languages, books are written in them, newspapers are published in them, and they are used for global communication. How many school children are taught to read and write in Scots? How many scientific papers are written in Scots? What about historical books and newspapers? Yes, I'm discounting local poetry and novels. I imagine most Scots speakers are also in fact English speakers. Thus, when they turn to Wikipedia for information, they look at the English Wikipedia, much like they would probably read an English newspaper or watch an English news show. Wikipedia is a responsive institution, not meant to take the lead. Our website was not designed to be a cultural museum, and its popularity rests on its usefulness. We should not be sponsoring small language wikis as experiments to "revive" or preserve small language communities. They simply will not gain enough traction, unless the WMF throws a lot of money at translation experts and academia to help fix the problem, though that would be an admission that these are not self-sustaining like Wikipedia is supposed to be. Now, some less popular Wikis do still hold potential, such as Swahili, but only because its use as a language crosses national boundaries and in East Africa there still exists Swahili media and newspapers. In summary, we need to stop encouraging small language wikis because they may be "cool" or "exciting" experiments, and start focusing on the languages that will actually reach people. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the main lesson to learn from this incident is that it can be very risky to write content for Wikipedia in a language that is not your first language. Although I am reasonably fluent in German, I never contribute any significant content (other than links to images, and brief captions for the images) to German Wikipedia. On the other hand, I have translated a large amount of content from other languages into my first language, English. The translated content even includes material originally published in languages I can't speak, but can translate with the assistance of Google translate. There is obvious risk in publishing content that is partially machine translated, and I think that that risk is acceptable only if the destination language is the translator's first language. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone check if the articles of the pre-1933 orthography reform version of the Belarusian Wikipedia are actually written in pre-1933 orthography reform? Veverve (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Many small wikis are not going to be sustainable. I can't see that this particular one is a worthwhile long-term exercise. Just delete it. Nigej (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone should take a close look at the Surinamese Wikipedia [1]. Friends from Suriname told me the language used was ridiculous and could not have come from native speakers. Luvstalk (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Luvstalk: This is an important story. If there are numerous failures among the 300+ wikipedias in meeting even minimum standards for language fluency - then this is a major problem and would suggest that the community or the WMF should take some serious action. It is important also to recognize that The Signpost has serious difficulties in reporting these stories. None of our reporters speak Sranantongo as far as I know, and I'm sure we don't speak at least 250 of the languages represented with Wikipedia versions. That's the same problem that bureaucrats and the WMF have, as far as I can tell. We'd also need to be very careful *not* to go accusing anybody of this problem without having multiple good sources to nail down the facts. And we'd need to communicate with the admins or others who supposedly have the problem. In short we're dependent on native speakers coming forward and letting us know what's up. So let us know! Send me information including good contacts, the admins involved, etc. to Special:Emailuser/Smallbones and we'll do our best to get the story out - while still respecting the dignity of all participants. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

51 edits so far today, including talk pages as if nothing is out of the ordinary. So he's gotten over it and everything is hunky-dory now? Do people still recommend that we not attempt to talk to him? EllenCT (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we? As you can read above, the editor base seems to think this was just a childhood mistake and nothing more to say about it, which is just the sort of thing game players would conclude. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that he's under the scrutiny of native speakers (it looks like the editathon has resulted in almost 3,000 good edits so far) I'm sure this will all blow over in a gust of wikilove, but there still appear to be at least 17,000 articles which are not in Scots, the vast majority of them due to him. EllenCT (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An important piece of context is that those 51 edits were largely moving pages to new titles which had been requested as a result of the editathon involving Scots speakers. That person was helping to clear things up with the community, rather than resuming as before. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell, EllenCT, and Chris troutman: That kind of thing will be the extent of his involvement in Scots Wikipedia as things currently stand. His articles are currently on track for deletion. I assure you; AG is taking this seriously. There are a contingent of Scots Speakers who reached out to him to try and get him to resume editing. No surprise, he followed their request. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenCT:,@Richard Nevell: Dear all, I changed the title of this section and the comment above to remove the username, presumably the person involved in the incident. The username of the person involved is not mentioned in the article. In addition, according to the reddit discussion that person has received harassment due to the incident. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SYSS Mouse: Sensible move, thank you. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have often cleaned up or at least partially anglicized material on the English language Wikipedia that has been written by people whose English is far from perfect (some I'd rate as a 2 in their English skills). I'm more than happy to continue doing so, however I'm well aware that we have such content here that in some cases has been up for a while...... Possibly more such content than the not really Scottish content on Scots Wiki. But within the much much larger English wikipedia this is a tiny proportion and I suspect an even smaller proportion of the views as they tend to be low profile articles. Should we change things so that all new articles by people with imperfect English should start in draft and only move to mainspace when they have been fixed? I'd prefer not as I believe in crowd sourcing, I'm comfortable that some of my fellow Wikipedians have a secondary motivation of practicing and improving a language other than their native one. But it would be an easy story for some tabloid to lambast one or more of our contributors on this wiki in the way they have pilloried a Wikimedian for content they have been contributing since the age of 12. The wisdom of crowds is a great idea, but if you get the wrong crowd, and for Scots Wikipedia a crowd of enthusiastic Scottish Americans was certainly not the right crowd, you get the wrong form of wisdom. ϢereSpielChequers 16:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that one person systematically ruined a whole language encyclopedia (not that there was ever much of it to begin with). One person making poorly translated edits on en.wiki is not going to cause problems of such scale. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Scot Wikipedia will survive if the scot knows what happening to their language wikipedia and if they have secured and trusted editors. No language has ever challenged english due the native refuse to contribute to their own wikipedia. view,Tbiw (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One particular requirement was part of a major theme: anonymity. As well as keeping all case information to themselves under a currently non-published reinforced non-disclosure agreement (NDA) – above and beyond the standard non-public information agreement – candidates made anonymous applications and are to keep both others' and their own membership secret. A number of changes were made after applications closed due to "negotiation between committee finalists and Deputy GC", including further limiting CRC membership knowledge to only three Board members but giving retired CRC members the right to self-disclose after 6 months. Erm...what? No. This is not how we operate. We know who makes these decisions. Anonymity on the part of the decision-makers is utterly unacceptable. Even if all the details of why the decision was made can't be made public, the identity of the people who made the decision absolutely must be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Nearly everybody is here under a pseudonym, including yourself. We don't publish the real names of admins or ArbCom members, or even ordinary editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the conversation is about real names, but total anonymity. We, as a community, know who our elected admins and arbs are even if we know them by pseudonym. Not knowing at all who is on the committee could mean that there's nobody on the committee and we're assured we should trust the decisions handed down. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One concern with this secrecy is recusal, or potentially the lack of it. With Arbcom if an Arb forgets past encounters with one of the parties to a dispute it is possible to remind them. But with an anonymous review committee any recusal operates almost entirely on the honour system. Even with T&S there is the potential for a party to a case to check with T&S that a particular staff member they have bad blood with is recused re their case. It is possible that a fellow committee member could know of a conflict of interest and remind someone of it. But if the committee is a diverse group of Wikimedians, or even a random group of them, there is a real risk that they don't know each other's pasts well enough to know of occasions where each other should recuse. ϢereSpielChequers 23:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as Chris Troutman said. I have no problem with pseudonymity. I do have a problem with anonymity. When I was on the ArbCom, when I cast a vote, I cast it under my username. Now, obviously, "Seraphimblade" is not my real, legal name—but it is my pseudonym on the project and what people know me by, and I signed that name to any such decision. Similarly, if I block someone, delete a page, whatever have you, my username appears in the log as having done so and I can therefore be held accountable for it. It is not done anonymously. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Trust & Safety Case Review Committee are not accountable to us; they are accountable to WMF, who know their real, legal names. But if you want to initiate an RfC to abolish anonymity, I would definitely support that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If T&S is going to be taking actions regarding communities, but not be accountable to those same communities, that's a problem on a whole different scale. It's not WMF's place to be doing what the community of editors doesn't want done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]