Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2020-08

Problem in the Oversight policy

Info: I have started a Discussion at Talk:Oversight policy-𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬08:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Technical Wishes: FileExporter and FileImporter become default features on all Wikis

The FileExporter and FileImporter will become a default features on all wikis until August 7, 2020. They are planned to help you to move files from your local wiki to Wikimedia Commons easier while keeping all original file information (Description, Source, Date, Author, View History) intact. Additionally, the move is documented in the files view history. How does it work?

Step 1: If you are an auto-confirmed user, you will see a link "Move file to Wikimedia Commons" on the local file page.

Step 2: When you click on this link, the FileImporter checks if the file can in fact be moved to Wikimedia Commons. These checks are performed based on the wiki's configuration file which is created and maintained by each local wiki community.

Step 3: If the file is compatible with Wikimedia Commons, you will be taken to an import page, at which you can update or add information regarding the file, such as the description. You can also add the 'Now Commons' template to the file on the local wiki by clicking the corresponding check box in the import form. Admins can delete the file from the local wiki by enabling the corresponding checkbox. By clicking on the 'Import' button at the end of the page, the file is imported to Wikimedia Commons.

If you want to know more about the FileImporter extension or the Technical Wishes Project, follow the links. --For the Technical Wishes Team:

Max Klemm (WMDE) 09:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia's association with Fandom / Wikia

Although this is a problem I've had in the back of my mind for at least a couple of years, I never really considered posting about it here. My question is about Wikimedia's association with Fandom (aka Wikia). According to Wikipedia's article about the company, w:fandom.com#Controversies, "Wikia is not the commercial counterpart to Wikipedia", as stated by Wikimedia staff. So, then it would make sense there is no preferential treatment of Fandom over any other wiki farm out there, by Wikimedia's software MediaWiki. After all, there are plenty of competing platforms out there, not to mention several wikis being hosted by either an individual game publisher or an independent organisation created around an individual wiki, just to name a few examples I know of.

Now the problem I'm having is that there is a built-in wikilinking system — similar to w: prefixes for enwp, or mw: prefixes for MediaWiki.org, which all make complete sense to implement as Wikimedia's own projects — to link to Fandom wikis, which probably stems from the old days when it got founded by Wikimedia staff members. Just to show what my issue is, there is even inconsistency in linkability between two Fandom-owned platforms, fandom.com and gamepedia.com:

• wikia:minecraft:Main Page
• gamepedia:minecraft:Main Page / gpedia:minecraft:Main page / etc.
• wikidot:Main Page
• weirdgloop:runescape:Main Page
• etc...

Now, I don't expect every single commercial wiki platform out there to be incorporated like this into MediaWiki software. But, objectively speaking, there is no reason to seemingly endorse Wikia through implementing these wikilinks to their platform on every single current MediaWiki installation by default, without supporting their competitors as well (as shown in that example, the bigger of the two Minecraft wikis cannot be linked as easily as the . Other than backwards compatibility I see absolutely no reason to keep this wikilinking a possibility in mediawiki software.

My request is to either also support things like gamepedia:, which would then lead you down the rabbit hole of also supporting weirdgloop: for the RuneScape wiki family, and probably a whole list of other smaller wiki farms, or simply remove the support for wikia: wikilinking altogether.

To handle the breaking of existing wikilinks that use this prefix, there are plenty of solutions. Either a hidden category could be made to appear on every page that contains such a prefix, to phase in the deprecation of this prefix. Or an automated porting script could be run on installing a new version of MediaWiki (if the software supports such a thing). Or, the upgrade logs could simply notify anyone upgrading their wiki that this feature will no longer be supported due to Wikimedia's desire to be unbiased.

In my opinion, it's weird that Wikimedia has tried its very best to stay unbiased in every single way, yet keeps supporting this feature that directly associates the software produced by Wikimedia with a company from which Wikimedia has distanced itself. Joeytje50 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Interwiki links are kept at Interwiki map. There is no preference towards Wikia/Fandom, any site can have an interwiki prefix added if there is a need to link to it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Or an automated porting script could be run on installing a new version of MediaWiki (if the software supports such a thing I don't think it does. I support the removal of Wikia: though. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Needing help in attempting to fix hundreds of issues with a near-abandoned wiki. (Tagalog Wikibooks)

Hi! I stumbled upon the Tagalog Wikibooks recently after seeing vandalism on my Twitter timeline that seemed to be from Wikibooks. When I went over to revert the edit, it turns out that that page was not the only issue.

To put it bluntly, the Tagalog Wikibooks has been left completely defenseless, and is now a space crawling with vandalism edits and little to no documentation. In quick summation (and I hope I don't get reverted for having nasty words in here):

• The reading room is a Wikipedia-style Teahouse;
• There's little to no documentation on any policies, guidelines, instructions for reporting users, etc.;
• There's absolutely no active administrators, page movers, etc.;
• There hasn't been a single vandalism revert for weeks;
• WB: doesn't even link to the Wikibooks: prefix;
• There's little to no templates that weren't imported;
• I can't even tell if the article content is correct or not since I only ever read a few of these books in passing;
• The "Teahouse" (actually translates to "coffee room") has not been archived since 2010 and was only archived just now when I did it.;
• There are no user warnings. I can't even warn someone without having to type out a message.
• In terms of vandalism and policies, this requires its own sublist. (Keeping this in to add a bit of joy to this serious-looking post) There's:

• jabs at government officials.
• K-Pop stans.
• Eggplant slapping?
• An extremely terrible Humba recipe, with beer, drinking party fingerfood, and genitals (both male and female) as ingredients.
• An account with a name translating to "flaccid penis" (and boy, oh boy, did they do quite some damage.)
• Someone advertising their Facebook in an attempt to get laid.
• (lit.) "Why did Dona Consolacion not attend mass", with the only content being (lit.) "You're stupid, let's make love"
• A comprehensive transcript of a "FlipTop Battle" (what?)
• among many... many... many many others.

This sight of the sheer amount of "bad" made me gag at first, but I'm now beginning to revert all vandalism changes manually, along with building bits and pieces of the wiki's meta with translated material from the English Wikibooks. Unfortunately, this won't be enough, since there's also issues with page naming and user blocking, and of course, the tangled web of vandalism from multiple users that make it impossible to keep an article without restoring an old version that also removes good edits (and no, Twinkle won't help at all). I can't move pages to fix pages into name conventions, and I also can't report users to administrators. Granted, most warnings would be stale anyway, but it would be better if we were able to curb vandalism by just a little bit.

I'm currently watching the entire wiki right now for changes, as to deter future vandals. However, that won't be enough to keep the wiki at bare minimum quality. So my question(s) now is/are: What do I do now? How can I move pages? Where do I report users? Is there a way to put a giant "Don't Vandalize" banner somewhere? Has anyone even tried to restore a wiki from this state in the history of Wikimedia?

There's no active administrators, page movers, and I'm one of the only 10 editors with an edit in the past few days (along with two vandals). I'm a relatively new user (compared to the upwards of 10 year editors across WMF projects) and I'm not even user about whether this is doable or if a procedure even exists in this case. I may have overstepped my bounds by assuming policies from the English Wikipedia and the English Wikibooks even if they don't exist in the Tagalog Wikibooks, but if being a counter-vandalism editor has taught me anything, it's to be bold if I see something's up.

I would absolutely love to hear anyone's advice on this. I was planning on calling for WikiProject Tambayan Philippines users for fixing it up too, but I wanted to ask here first since I have better chances of getting a response from an administrator or someone with experience in this. Please help me help this wiki back on its feet, since I see it as a very important resource for students like me. Mabuhay! Chlod (say hi!) 16:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You cannot move pages because your account is not autoconfirmed. As to the wiki generally, the case seems hopeless. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all, it's great that you decided to be bold and do something to get the wiki back in shape! As to whether it can be done or has been tried before, the answer is definitely yes. Some wikis even were already closed completely for a lack of activity and an abundance of vandalism, but were eventually reopened (one example is ba:b:). Here it's even easier as the wiki is not closed. - As Ruslik says, you can't move pages at the moment, but will be able to in 4 days. If you need something done that can only be done by administrators, you can request it on SRM, then stewards or global sysops will help you. You can also become an admin yourself, if that helps, by making a local RFA - since there is no community, that will be basically an announcement - and requesting the rights on SRP. --MF-W 22:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: I see. Thanks for the advice! Chlod (say hi!) 00:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Update request

Please go on Requests for new languages and change to created the Wikipedia Ladin on the approved section. Thank you in advance!!! --5.170.193.10 20:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Important: maintenance operation on September 1st

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its secondary data centre. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the secondary data centre on Tuesday, September 1st 2020.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

• You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Tuesday, September 1st. The test will start at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 19:30 IST, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 02:00 NZST on Wednesday September 2).
• If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

• Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
• There will be code freezes for the week of September 1st, 2020. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars

I would like to consult the foundation, if a proposal that aims to completely prevent anonymous users from editing on all Wikipedia hurts the 5 pillars or some foundation policy or not. Proposal link. Best regards. A.WagnerC (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The relevant WMF policy would be Privacy_policy#your-account-info Privacy_policy/FAQ#needaccount. Being able to edit while unregistered is also listed in founding principles, but I don't think that page is "binding". PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Obtaining and using a pre-existing account

Due to some local issues this question arose: is there an expressed Foundation or global community opinion on the title question to refer to?
Briefly saying:

1. person A created an account accA and edited with it
2. later (s)he gave/sold/donated this account to person B
3. person B continued to edit as accA

I am filtering out obvious misusage such as 1) joint account (A and И editing together from the same account), 2) flags transfer, you name it.
For the plain situation as spelled 1-2-3 above: is there some decision to refer to? --NeoLexx (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Accounts should only ever be used by one person. Surely this is like an inverse meat puppet? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

In what way meatpuppetry could be applied here (if A never had an access to accA after the transfer)? In some way it could be a "confidence factoring" (my term). When say an account created back in 2010 - so like "this user is already 10 years in Wikipedia" - when in fact the new account owner just made her first edits.

To be clear: the external secondary pre-existing accounts' market is a well-known and a long-standing phenomenon. I am not happy with it, many, many others are not happy with it. Yet I am seeking some global ruling on that rather than just "we are not happy with it". WP:COPYRIGHT application (one of proposed ways, over contributions of two authors under the same account) seems to me like really stretching the rules, but I may be wrong. --NeoLexx (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There are shared accounts which belong to several people at the same time initially, most wikis forbid them (for example ruwiki does), while some don't (I could not find a clause forbidding them on Commons for instance). Most wikis do allow shared accounts for bot and role accounts. That being said what you have said sounds like a different case, still it should mostly fall under local policies. If it does concern several wikis or global permissions though stewards can act on this. It will be a case by case decision though, rather than some set policy. --Base (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong URI for "Thank You" page after donating

After making a donation, I was redirected to https://thankyou.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You/en?country=XX with "XX" replaced by my country code. This should have been https://thankyou.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You. If it helps to debug this: English is not the primary language of country XX. --nBarto (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@NBarto: Thanks for reporting this. The fundraising team recently moved our thank you pages, and an oversight meant that some of them were not working for a few hours after the move. This has been fixed now. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Renaming

Please rename ten.wikipedia.org because this code is occupied by Tama (Q3832969). 217.117.125.72 12:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Cannot be done here. Use phabricator:  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: or anybody else, please, create task. 217.117.125.72 13:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done If you want it done, please do it yourself.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I don’t want register anywhere. 217.117.125.72 15:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I gotta say -- on the one hand, an extinct language, and on the other, a decade-old celebration. I'm not sure there's that serious of a collision. RexSueciae (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively at the time: it's not going to change. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct, and that is why the discussion and request belongs at Phabricator. If someone doesn't wish to register at Phabricator it becomes their issue. People can carry their own baggage and fight their own battles on such issues. We work in the realm of the reasonable not someone else's purity. None of us have "lackey" stamped on our foreheads.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Scots Wikipedia is largely not written in Scots

Per this Reddit thread, this is written in an entirely backwards way by someone who is not a speaker and is actively doing the language and community harm. This is a vanity project for a single person who is damaging the Wikimedia movement and the Scots community. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Vanity project" is maybe a little misleading. Say what you will, but this user clearly is acting in good faith; it'd be less alarming if the problem was simply one villain who needs to get banned. Just... a high-volume, low-quality contributor can be the most dangerous kind in their own way. In my opinion, this is not that user's fault, but rather a system failure - per this thread, there just aren't any Scots speakers on Scots Wikipedia. Thus there weren't any sanity checks.

The Wikimedia Foundation spends its cash extraordinary badly on things like consultants for brand refurbishes, but one way that it could genuinely and cheaply help out would be just to hire some paid admin / experts in controversial and low-traffic wikis. (Controversial example: Croatian Wikipedia. Low traffic: Scots.) I doubt they'd even have to pay much, go find recently graduated college students and retirees and the like. If we want to prevent this from happening again, take the million dollars for branding slides and hire 20 WMF advisors for various low-traffic Wikis instead. SnowFire (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently hosting an AMA about this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It may or may not be a vanity project; what is clear is that it is written by someone with a poor command of the Scots language/dialect, and is who is doing incredible damage to an aspect of cultural patrimony that has been consistently devalued and denigrated by its colonizer culture (England). I hope that a project to address this on a mass scale will be undertaken by actual Scots speakers. As it stands, this "scots" wikipedia is a bastardization of the Scots language/dialect which serves only as a smear on it.--Newmila (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, it seems to be the exact opposite of damaging cultural patrimony for someone of Scottish descent who has otherwise been assimilated into English/American culture to have researched and written hundreds of encyclopedic articles in (their albeit limited understanding of) the language/dialect. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've stated it on sco.wiki already, but I'll pick it up here too, the issue seems to be that reddit users are finding the quality of the wikipedia to be poor (which it is), however, outside of the Scots dictionary, there really isn't much to dictate how to translate into Scots in terms of grammar. As the language is in the minority what the project needs is those with native tongue to help out and write some style guides to make it easier. I find the AMA to be probably a bad idea. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Strong agree on the AMA, and I think that's a good way forward. Even if native speakers don't have the time to fix/write new content themselves, they could contribute to style guides and grammar resources (maybe they even know of some online already that could be adapted?) – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Giving people who don't speak a language a STYLE GUIDE won't make them competent translators. If the original critique is correct, the entire Scots wiki need burned to the ground, as it is doing more harm than good. 99.126.50.142 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reached out to a few people & organizations who could help out with the cleanup project. Which venue should be used to discuss it, as well as how to proceed forward in general? This thread, or somewhere on scowiki? Enterprisey (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that scowiki is damaging to the Scottish community, as mentioned by some. --IWI (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Can't necessarily comment on the quality of language, as I am not familiar. Is there a standardised form of Scots? --IWI (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There are a great many dialects and not much standardization. Also, someone started a request for comments on this issue, which might be a good place for discussion. RexSueciae (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

RexSueciae, an RFC this soon is going to be counter productive. We need to wait for Reddit to move on, then start a discussion on scowiki about this user's edits in particular, and lastly, start a discussion on meta about the future of scowiki in general. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm worried of what this means as a systematic failure. Who knows what other low-traffic wikis might be facing similar issues that no one is aware of. - BirdCities (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

In licht o the days revelations, a group haes been setup tae look at editathons an sic (search Scots wikipedia editors on Facebook). Juist tae note an aa, the editor wis anely 12 when they startit an wis in guid faith (aye, wider stannars of the sco.wiki ar forbye lackin). Haen had a leuk at som o the wirk he wis daen, a lot wis admin/categerie type chynges, sae the notion that ilka eedit they hae iver touched is wrang is owerblown. 2A02:C7F:8ECF:9900:619D:688D:F8AA:B8CC 22:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I already found one; the user under scrutiny here had listed themselves as having Level 1 knowledge of Pitkern/Norfuk, and is also an admin and contributor for the Pitkern Wikipedia. I haven't been active on Wikipedia in a long while, not sure how to flag this to the Pitcairn Wikipedians' attention. Their Village Pump seems pretty sparsely used, any ideas? Kleptosquirrel (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Pitkern Wikipedia as a whole is extremely inactive, judging by RecentChanges. I'm not sure whether there are even any active Wikimedians with good knowledge of the language, since the language has only ~400 native speakers (plus a low number of L2 speakers, probably). (Edit: AG only has ~200 mainspace edits on pihwiki. Most of their edits were to templates. So it seems like not a big deal, IMO.) PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Shuid Pitkern no be put unner a different topic? E'en if a related issue. 2A02:C7F:8ECF:9900:619D:688D:F8AA:B8CC 23:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment If the claims are true then the editor really should be told to stop and most of his creations completly rewritten. As for other small languages, yes I think this is a major systematic issue. If a language has very few speakers there is likely going to be very very very few people creating and editing the languages Wikipedia.*Treker (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not really the same issue. "Few people editing" is a known issue and expected for certain obscure languages with few fluent speakers. That's okay; there is no deadline, it will just be a small and focused Wikipedia then. This specific issue in Scots Wikipedia is no active editors and a flawed but high-volume editor creating / editing a lot of problematic content. The first case creates a small Wikipedia with 95% good content; the Scots Wikipedia case creates a somewhat larger Wikipedia but with 95% bad content. I do think there is a threat of this happening on other Wikipedia editions, and should be investigated, but it's definitely not the same thing as just vanilla low editor activity, which is potentially harmless. SnowFire (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes you are completly right, I should have been more clear. What I thought of was more that this person was allowed to do this for so many years because he seems to have been the sole contributor, there was no one else there to notice all the issues.*Treker (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• I sometimes (a fair amount) IP edit English Wikipedia, but I found the allegations in memes on social media. I've seen an article or two on Scots Wikipedia before, and thought it was a restricted issue because I know there are many editors in Scotland and assumed they'd be working on getting it fixed. I find that anyone from the UK would be able to recognise the language isn't actually Scots, and is barely passable as Scots English - the vast differences in dialects, with their own vocabulary and grammar, even across England raises a red flag as to how much of the language used on Scots Wikipedia is Standard English in a Scottish Accent. Heck, some of it clearly uses American English grammar! It's defiling a whole language, and I can't honestly believe someone who does not speak Scots thought they could be helping. It's unfortunate they're getting bashed on here and (according to their user page) doxxed, but this is a serious issue. I wouldn't be surprised if a Scots Language Academy or the SLC wanted to get involved. The Scots Wikipedia is useless at best (and most viewed by people in America) and a genuine threat to the actual language at worst, and for the sake of that language should be nuked. 31.52.196.78 01:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• It's very difficult to maintain Wikipedia language editions for languages which are subject of displacement by higher prestige languages. It would have been better to start with Wiktionary or Wikisource, but here we are. When making sweeping statements about right or wrong for such a language, it would help if commenters specified what norm of the language they're referring to: for instance, what body of literature, what codified grammar, what speaking samples of what sub-population. It's extremely difficult for me to follow such discussions about right and wrong language even for my grandmothers' "dialects" (Paduan and Milanese, supposedly represented by vec.wikipedia.org and lmo.wikipedia.org), let alone languages for which I've never browsed a grammar book or dictionary. Nemo 05:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'm a fairly active English Wikipedia editor, but I saw this thread on the SubredditDrama subreddit. In my opinion, shutting down the wiki is not an option we should seriously consider. Of course, the errors are on a wide scale, and they need to be fixed or removed somehow. But the only way to do that is to have a greater number of fluent Scots speakers contribute. I think an edit-a-thon with Scots speakers, as I think has been mentioned elsewhere, is a very good idea. epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Epicgenius, I want an edit-a-thon to work, but we need to think long term. What happens when the edit-a-thon ends and scowiki goes back to being edited by any individual that wants to, with no community to provide oversight? Who is going to participate in the edit-a-thon to begin with? Is there a page where knowledgeable Scots speakers can pledge to participate? Lastly, who is going to organize similar edit-a-thons on other small language Wikis where a similar problem may be occurring (in the event that this is, in fact, a systemic issue)? --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think a long-term approach is also needed. I'm not sure how that would work, but we should focus on fixing the current errors on the Scots Wikipedia. However, this is also a small-language wiki, and it may be harder to prevent this from happening again with such a small fluent editor base. epicgenius (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It has reached the main media: Shock an aw: US teenager wrote huge slice of Scots Wikipedia in the Guardian. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 19:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• There absolutely needs to be discussion about having a plan in place for shutting down and rebooting small-language Wikipedias when they seem to be solely the work of one or a few bad actors. (Does anyone remember when the Wikipedia article on bras got taken over by one male weirdo who wanted to discourage women from wearing them and filled it with bogus theories that wearing bras causes cancer?) Blythwood (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have thought about this for a while and honestly it might just be for the best to delete all of the editors creations.*Treker (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

→ See the ongoing discussion/RFC at Requests_for_comment/Large_scale_language_inaccuracies_on_the_Scots_Wikipedia --Janwo (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)