Talk:FAQs regarding Scots Wikipedia controversy

"What will happen to the user? Nothing"

I believe this revert was improper for the reasons at [1] and is tantamount to a slap in the face to Scots speakers. @SnowFire: would you please reconsider in light of [2]? James Salsman (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not medieval Europe, where we stick the village fool in the town stocks to laugh at. This user unquestionably was contributing in good faith (despite your accusatory edit), and stopped when the problems were brought to light. You don't get "punished" for that here. Your demands for a ban are entirely out-of-line, disproportionate, and cruel. Even if you disagree, this is not how Wikimedia works as a matter of practicality - Wikimedia-initiated bans are reserved for, like, super-vandals who hop language editions. A formal proposal to ban AG would never succeed. And would be pointlessly petty anyway, since the user has already laid off for now. SnowFire (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You say it is an unquestionable opinion but then hypothesize that I might disagree? I do, and because of your self-contradiction I repeat my request for you to self-revert and intend to if you do not. James Salsman (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

AG was not intentionally trolling, if that's your accusation. He was, and is, well-meaning. I don't see the merits in debating that with you here. Don't trust me here; perhaps you should read the responses to your ridiculous statement at Requests_for_comment/Large_scale_language_inaccuracies_on_the_Scots_Wikipedia#Proposal_£ , which you somehow thought was a nice cheer-up comment, but reads as accusatory grave-dancing. As others have said, drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse carcass. AG is already in the hot seat of having everything they ever did on the Internet (which is all painfully earnest) combed over by actual trolls, hence having to delete his Twitter account and the like. You are making that problem worse.

There is no self-contradiction here. I'm merely saying that if you thought that AG should be banned due to some different reason, then it's not likely to succeed, so you shouldn't bother kicking up a pointless discussion. (For example, admins misusing their power can get a Wikimedia level ban, but there's no accusation that happened here. You could argue for some sort of "competence is required" ban a la English Wikipedia, but that only happens after a user is told of problems, and ignores them to continue editing on in a problematic fashion. This didn't happen in AG's case, albeit because nobody actually broke the news and told him until two days ago. That's a tragic systemic failure, but it's OUR failure, not his.) SnowFire (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Why not a shared failure? James Salsman (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

James Salsman, I agree with SnowFire here. There is no indication whatsoever that AG had anything but the best intentions. The attempt to subtly - or, as you have done at the RfC, not so subtly - cast doubt on that will achieve nothing but distract people from the substantive issue at hand and contribute to a witch-hunt. Blablubbs (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There may be a way to measure the before-and-after damage to Scots usage in the wild with a citogenesis search. That many edits over such a lengthy time period while aware that one doesn't understand the grammar is not how I would describe the best intentions. I am able to assume that the edits were made in a desire to improve the accuracy, but I am not of the opinion that it would be prudent to do so as the foremost motivation. A.G. was well aware that competence is required to edit, and proceeding as if it was not is a deliberate act. If the edits had been accurate, I would agree with you. The examples I have seen of A.G.'s interactions with those who were trying to help did not appear welcoming. If there is any evidence that A.G. ever did or said anything in favor of expert editor attraction or retention, I would like to read it. James Salsman (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I've made my views clear elsewhere, but -- I don't particularly like AG or the result of their actions. I didn't think their actions of several years, and their precipitous departure, were helpful to the wiki. But this goes too far. There is no wiki policy to act in such a manner as to affirmatively support "expert editor attraction or retention" as you suggest; there were, as far as I can tell, few enough leaders on Scots Wikipedia to promulgate such rules even if they existed. It sounds a lot like you're trying to come up with reasons to ban a user who has already departed the site in disgrace. You're beating a dead horse. (And, as far as the user's intentions are, do remember that they were a youth when they began editing, and indeed are barely an adult at present! What's more likely -- user set out to make deliberately incompetent edits, or user exercised poor judgment due to inexperience while making what they thought were competent edits?) RexSueciae (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My primary intention is to show that the community has a modicum of respect for endangered languages against which they have already caused immense damage. The ban I proposed is intended to prevent further edits such that the date of A.G's last edit on the wiki is meaningfully useful. James Salsman (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think your latest compromise attempt was accurate either, and mostly reverted it. James Salsman, all we ask is for you to recognize that you are outvoted on this. Fine, everyone else is "wrong", but as long as everyone else is wrong-in-your-view, the old text is accurate - nothing is going to happen to this user administratively, other than the shame and disgrace they've already amply received.

I suppose I'll go into a bit more detail since you keep persisting on this: none of what you wrote has anything to do with actual reasons to ban someone. Banning is always forward looking, not backward looking. If a good faith editor makes a cataclysmic mistake - the kind of mistake that causes real damage and wastes other editor time - but it is unlikely to recur, that's actually not a reason to ban. You just tell that editor not to click the "delete database" button again, or whatever the problem was, and everyone moves on. Flip side, if a new user performs completely innocuous, beneficial edits, but they're a returning sockpuppet just garnering edit count to not look suspicious, they'll be banned on the spot even if none of their contributions were problematic. It's the future that matters, not the past. If you wanted to push for some sort of punishment, talking about all the damage this user did in the past is irrelevant. You need to make some argument that this user is intending to do bad things in the future. In the unlikely scenario of the user resuming editing and then continuing to cause damage, then this will change - but we'll come to that when it actually happens, not before. SnowFire (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As you know, I do not believe that the majority of the edits were made primarily in a good faith attempt to improve the accuracy, readability, or reliability of the encyclopedia. Do you understand the difference between asking authorities to ban an editor and asking that the editor themselves agree to a ban? James Salsman (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You've done that. You can now stop trying to make those changes to the FAQ. Thanks, – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware that A.G. voluntarily stopped contributing to the Scots Wikipedia in 2018 as stated in [3]. Accordingly, my request for a six month probationary period is moot, and I no longer intend to contest the text of the FAQ except by changing "It is clear..." to "Many if not most believe..." or "We assume...." James Salsman (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

AG slowed the pace of their contributions in 2018, but you can see for yourself that he still contributed - albeit much of it being simple stuff like Category names that might even be fine since. See https://sco.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AmaryllisGardener&offset=20200616063112&limit=500&target=AmaryllisGardener .

It's clear that AG acted in good faith, as the FAQ originally said. You're free to believe what you like, including thinking we're wrong on this, but we don't need to include every single "there is someone out there who disagrees" disclaimer. SnowFire (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Being harassed away from editing any Wikipedia project is punishment enough. I recommend dropping the stick. Isabelle ^🔔 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not share the opinion on whether that is proportionate. My objection here to the idea that "clear" is accurate will have to do. James Salsman (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What proportion of wikimedians believe that A.G. was acting primarily in good faith?

Whatever the proportion, it is certainly not all of us. I am willing to entertain the possibility that A.G. himself was the victim of multi-year trolling. I reiterate that I have not asked authorities to ban him, but I have asked him to agree to an appealable indefinite ban. James Salsman (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at this point. Wikipedia bans aren't punitive, they're designed to prevent someone from disrupting Wikipedia. There is no reason to believe that AG is going to go back to editing as if this whole thing never happened. Thus, we have absolutely nothing to gain from banning him. Furthermore, compelling someone to "agree" to an indefinite ban is no different than actually banning as the ultimate effect is the same. Lastly, it is utterly irrelevant whether or not AG acted in good faith; as I said at the mass discussion: "no one person can ever ruin a project. Anyone could have reverted [AG's] edits at any point, … but they didn't. The issue here isn't [AG's] edits, it's lack of participation on the Scots Wikipedia in general." --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The effect is not the same. I agree with most of Janwo's comments at [4] and [5]. James Salsman (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Of those who are actively engaged in the discussion / RFQ on wiki, it certainly appears the overwhelming majority is willing to give the benefit of the doubt. RexSueciae (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has been ongoing for less than a week. James Salsman (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a site ban for AG would accomplish. Yes, we need to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen in the future, but banning an individual user who isn't going to contribute again anyway does nothing to help with that. The issue was caused by a lack of community participation, and how that should be addressed is the focus of the ongoing RFC. It's being taken care of. I've yet to hear an explanation for how this ban would be anything other than a punitive measure intended to demean AG. In the incredibly unlikely event that AG contributes to Scots Wikipedia again and the contribution is disruptive, a ban may be justified, but until then, it's not. And while I am aware that my personal incredulity is not a proof, I find it highly unlikely that years worth of editing was done with intent to disrupt. No trolls that I have ever encountered have ever shown that degree of persistence, especially when they were only able to pull it off because no one went on the website, which sort of defeats the purpose of the troll to begin with. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Such a ban would be a reasonable gesture towards speakers of any endangered language which had this happen to it. James Salsman (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

One more important point is there are not Banning policy in Scots Wikipedia, so it will be unclear about the effect of a ban.--GZWDer (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't throw bans around to pacify Reddit. w:WP:NOTGETTINGIT --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not only am I certain that he was acting in good faith, I would go further and say that he should continue to act as an admin on scowiki, because there will always be mop-related work needing done, and all the evidence suggests he's a competent broom wielder. Thparkth (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thparkth: do you believe he is able to modulate towards authentic Scots? James Salsman (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)