Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Possible UCoC violation and administrative abuse on Scots Wikipedia

This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
BZPN (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
CiphriusKane (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[1]

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. BZPN (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BZPN

Description of the problem - (BZPN)

Background

I joined the Scots Wikipedia approximately one year ago and began active editing only recently. I subsequently proposed a maintenance bot ([2]). The proposal was fully documented, deliberately conservative in scope, and explicitly designed not to generate, translate, rewrite, or otherwise produce language content. The bot was tested for several days under supervision. Following this testing period, the administrator (CiphriusKane) explicitly stated ([3]):

A'v seen the testin [...] an fand a heap ae historical vandalism as weel, sae a'm happy fur it ti keep makkin the reports. Nae seein ony issue wi lettin the bot dae a trial rin fur the ither tasks as weel.

This constituted a clear approval of the trial and confirmation of satisfaction with the bot’s observed behaviour. After the test period concluded, I announced my intention to request a permanent bot flag on Meta. The request was properly filed and marked as "In progress" ([4]). There were no formal community objections, and at no point did I withdraw the request. The conflict arose only after the process was already underway. Crucially, it did not concern the bot’s documented or observed behaviour. Instead, the focus shifted abruptly toward my personal language proficiency and my prior participation on other Wikimedia projects. This shift from technical evaluation to personal scrutiny is central to this case.

UCoC Section 2

The Universal Code of Conduct, Section 2 - Expected behaviour, states:

In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without exceptions based on [...] language fluency [...].

Section 2.1 – Mutual respect further provides:

We expect all Wikimedians to show respect for others. [...] Practice empathy. [...] Assume good faith, and engage in constructive edits.

Despite these standards, the administrator made the following statements:

[...] it’s pretty obvious that they're not a Scots speaker ([5])
[...] clearly dinna hae the leid skills ti edit ([6])
[...] the mix o Scots an Inglis in yer messages disna gie mense ti the idea aat ye hae the needit skills ([7])

These statements do not evaluate the bot’s documented functionality or technical compliance. Instead, they directly target personal language proficiency and question my legitimacy as a contributor based on my language skills rather than the merits of the proposal. Additionally, the administrator stated ([8]):

pairt o the raeson aat the wiki's in sic a mess is acause o fowks "learning Scots"

This statement is discriminatory in nature. It frames learners as a structural cause of systemic problems and creates a hostile environment for contributors who are not native speakers. Such framing is incompatible with the UCoC requirement that behaviour be founded in respect and that no exceptions be made based on language fluency. Such framing also risks establishing a systemic precedent in which contributors are excluded not based on conduct, but on perceived legitimacy tied to language proficiency or newcomer status. The UCoC prohibits conduct that abandons respect and applies exclusionary standards based on language fluency. The shift from evaluating a documented technical proposal to questioning whether I belong as a contributor crosses that line.

UCoC Section 3.1

Section 3.1 defines harassment as:

[...] any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome.

It explicitly includes:

Insults (including attacks based on personal characteristics),
Threats (including suggesting unfair and unjustified reputational harm),
Hounding,
Trolling.

The UCoC does not prohibit awareness of cross-wiki conduct. Merely mentioning prior blocks or past cases is not, in itself, a violation. The issue here is how and why such matters were introduced. During a local discussion concerning bot approval, the administrator publicly raised prior blocks, a Discord ban, and a previous UCoC case ([9]):

Did ye tell that ti the fowks aat opponed yer simplewiki RfA based on yer UCOC case, Discord ban an ban on plwiki? E'en leukin inti simplewiki an plwiki a'm seein mair reid flags

These statements were presented in a manner that questioned my overall legitimacy and credibility as a new contributor without any previous history on Scots Wikipedia. The here problem is the use of past issues to:

Undermine the assumption of good faith,
Pre-frame me as inherently problematic or untrustworthy,
Create a hostile evaluative atmosphere,
Demand public explanations (!) for unrelated matters during a local technical review.

Requiring a new contributor to publicly defend or explain unrelated cross-wiki history in the middle of an unrelated discussion shifts the focus from the proposal to adjudication of personal character. That is not technical scrutiny; it is reputational escalation. The predictable outcome of introducing unrelated disciplinary history in this manner is not constructive review but reputational pressure and discouragement. Section 2 requires contributors to "assume good faith" and "practice empathy." Using past sanctions against new user primarily as a rhetorical device to cast suspicion directly undermines these principles. Whether the conduct meets the full threshold of harassment under Section 3.1 is for independent determination. However, the described behaviour reasonably creates an environment experienced as intimidating and hostile.

UCoC Section 3.2

Section 3.2 provides:

Abuse occurs when someone in a real or perceived position of power, privilege, or influence engages in disrespectful, cruel, and/or violent behaviour towards other people. [...] Abuse of seniority and connections: Using one's position and reputation to intimidate others.

After initially approving the trial and expressing satisfaction, the administrator intervened at Meta to halt the bot flag request, stating ([10]):

[...] please put this request on hold [...] I was a bit hasty in approving somebody that's essentially a newcomer [...]

The justification shifted from observable bot behaviour to subjective distrust based on my status and cross-wiki reputation. Administrative authority was used to interrupt an ongoing process that had not been withdrawn and faced no formal objection. Arbitrary reversal grounded in personal distrust rather than policy-based reasoning tied to the bot’s scope raises serious concerns under Section 3.2; there is also no policy on scowiki specifying the right of admins to grant a bot flag, so the admin exceeded his permissions by trying to reject/halt the overall discussion process (on scowiki and Meta) on his own.

Departure

On 14 February 2026, without any formal withdrawal by me, the administrator publicly stated ([11]):

[...] BZPN his decidit ti lea the wiki

This statement was factually incorrect. No one should ever have the right to announce someone else's departure from the wiki without their explicit request; in this situation, the administrator effectively removed me from the wiki himself without my request and consent to it. Personally, I perceive this as an exclusion from the project. Earlier, I had written ([12]):

Either ye want the ScotsBot [...] or me an the bot will step awa fae this wiki tae save ye ony mair bother [...]

This was clearly conditional language expressed during escalating conflict. It did not constitute a resignation. The administrator responded ([13]):

Bye then

Shortly thereafter, the bot was indefinitely blocked with the reason:

Unappruived bot, awner decidit ti lea the wiki

A conditional statement was unilaterally interpreted as a definitive departure. That interpretation was publicly asserted as fact and then used to justify an indefinite block (with IP autoblock - usually used for vandalism, not for bots awaiting approval) on my bot (!). This seems to me to be an administrative abuse - in the middle of the discussion on scowiki and request on Meta, the administrator suddenly announced my departure without my consent, and then used the situation he created to impose a ban on the bot that was currently waiting for approval (!). I will also mention again that scowiki administrators, according to its policies, do not have the right to make the sole decision to grant/remove a bot flag or reject flag requests based on their own discretion.

Bot

The administrator also alleged:

They've also breached the initial agreement to not do translation work.

This raises serious concerns under Section 3.2 - the administrator used an unknown to me (and perhaps non-existent) "initial agreement" that I was not informed about, to question me and halt the Meta bot flag request. The bot documentation explicitly states:

ScotsBot does not create language content of any kind. It does not generate Scots, translate text, rewrite sentences, correct grammar, or ‘Scotsify’ articles.

Edits described as "bot-like oversettins" were manual edits performed via a personal user script. These were attributable to my user account and were not autonomous bot actions. Conflating manual edits with autonomous bot behaviour constitutes a technical misrepresentation. The administrator treated manual edits performed via a personal user script as autonomus bot activity. This distinction is fundamental: a user script executes only through direct user action and produces edits attributable to the user’s main account. The bot account did not perform the edits in question, and no automated task violated any scowiki policy. In such a case there was no basis for block of my bot.

Conclusion

This case centers on two principal issues:

First, the procedurally unfounded removal of me from the project through a public declaration of departure ("Nae duin - BZPN his decidit ti lea the wiki") despite no formal withdrawal, followed by the indefinite blocking of my bot on that basis ("Unappruived bot, awner decidit ti lea the wiki"). An active process was unilaterally terminated by mischaracterising a conditional statement as a definitive resignation. This raises serious concerns under - among others - Section 3.2.
Second, explicit language-based discrimination, including statements questioning my legitimacy due to language proficiency and the assertion:

pairt o the raeson aat the wiki's in sic a mess is acause o fowks "learning Scots"

Section 2 and Section 2.1 explicitly prohibit exceptions based on language fluency. Framing learners as the cause of systemic problems directly contradicts both the letter and the spirit of these provisions.

Previous attempts at a solution - (BZPN)

There were no prior formal attempts to resolve this matter through local processes, as the project lacks an active community and any independent self-governance or dispute-resolution body capable of reviewing administrative actions. No meaningful local appeal or review mechanism was available.

CiphriusKane

Previous attempts at a solution - CiphriusKane

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

@BZPN:, are you aware of the previous language issues on Scots Wikipedia? That situation showed how insufficient language skills, even if well-intentioned, can cause serious quality problems. A basic level of proficiency is a practical requirement for that language Wikipedia to function properly. I don’t see this as discrimination. If I tried to edit Korean Wikipedia with only very basic Korean and was told my skills weren’t sufficient, that would be reasonable. There are other language editions where contributions may better match one’s language skills. Some level of language competency is required to maintain standards. --BRP^ever 15:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BZPN: i think it is fair to expect language competence. Or else the community has to clean up after bad automatic translations. For example, enwiki has a page on knowledge competence, and it doesn't necessarily discriminate less abled (Competence is required)? --Ghilt (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to BRPever and Ghilt: I don't recall any official exemption of scowiki from the UCoC due to any "previous language issues." You can't treat the UCoC leniently in this case based on the project's situation a few years ago. Furthermore - in my opinion - in this situation, there was no constructive criticism directed at me (AGF + friendly suggestions), only demeaning comments (described by me in "UCoC Section 2" above), outright exclusion from the project based on language concerns, and general hostility towards new editora and language learners. It's worth mentioning here that the administrator's accusations about my lack of language skills are also greatly exaggerated, and this can be verified by reading my articles (e.g. sco:Karol Nawrocki, sco:Rafał Trzaskowski, sco:Bishop), which are generally of quite not bad quality, in my opinion. However, if we hypothetically assume that the history of a project should and does influence the perception of users learning the language, then theoretically we should treat 1/3 of new editors on e.g. simplewiki in the same way as I was treated, and it would not be a violation of the UCoC. This would be inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the UCoC. BZPN (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are conflating two separate issues: the UCoC’s application and a project’s right to require relevant competency.

I’m not arguing that the Universal Code of Conduct applies differently to Scots Wikipedia or any other project. It applies equally everywhere.

What I am saying is that the existence of language non-discrimination does not prevent a project, or its members, from viewing insufficient language proficiency as a disqualifying factor for writing content in that specific language edition. That is a competency requirement tied to the task of building an encyclopedia in that language.

If there were tone or civility issues, that is a separate question under the UCoC. But the principle that contributors need adequate language skills to build a language-specific Wikipedia is, in itself, reasonable and not discriminatory. BRP^ever 16:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute that adequate language competence is required on a language-specific Wikipedia. However, such a requirement must still be applied in accordance with the UCoC, particularly Section 2.1 on mutual respect and the principle of assuming good faith. The guidance to "assume good faith" exists precisely to ensure that contributors are evaluated based on their actual conduct and contributions, not on general impressions or assumptions. In my case, the conclusion that I "clearly do not have the required language skills" was stated categorically, without reference to specific diffs, systematic linguistic errors, or concrete examples demonstrating persistent deficiencies, which in my opinion is a personal attack. Moreover, the statement that part of the reason the wiki is "in such a mess" is because of people "learning Scots" goes beyond any technical assessment of individual competence. It frames language learners as a structural problem. This shifts the tone from evaluating edits to characterizing a category of contributors. This is a generalization and I personally - without attributing any bad intentions to the administrator who said it - see it as something like "because of people like you, this wiki is in bad shape". Even where competence is a legitimate concern, Section 2.1 requires that discussions remain respectful, evidence-based, and grounded in good faith. My concern is therefore not the sole existence of standards, but the absence of any evaluation and the use of generalized characterizations that risk create a hostile atmosphere for newcomers and language learners. BZPN (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. (@Ghilt): in light of the existing articles I created (examples above), which are largely written in consistent Scots, the categorical statement that I "clearly do not have the required language skills" was made without reference to specific diffs or concrete examples. If language competence was genuinely in question, it should have been evaluated on verifiable evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the statement shifts from technical assessment toward a personal characterization, especially when raised alongside unrelated cross-wiki history. BZPN (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable to expect people to have some understanding of the language they are editing in. I believe the English essay is en:Wikipedia:Competency is required, and that their approach is to suggest that non-speakers edit their own language wikis instead. I'm unsure if they've ever blocked anybody for language competency issues, but I ken enwikt has, and scowiki has as well (though rarely). I think claiming that the Scots word for cross actually means road (as seen here is a perfect display of incompetency. Also given the ultimatum, which I took to mean "Stop asking questions or I'm taking my bot and going home" and that I believe is a fair assessment here, I acted in the belief that ye'd decided to quit the wiki. And please stop cherry picking quotes. The full statement regarding "learning Scots" is "As fur "learning Scots", pairt o the raeson aat the wiki's in sic a mess is acause o fowks "learning Scots", fowks aat wi aa gweed intentions managed ti cause sic a mess wi bad owersettins aat there wis discussion anent shuttin the hale projeck doon, an fae fit a'm seein ye wis daein the same hing." I also pointed out that the wiki has set tasks for learners if they want to help, and that ye never requested approval for yer gadget.

Ye stated that the bot wouldn't be used for translating work, and I took that to mean that applied to everything to do with the bot, including the faulty wordlists that only underwent quick spotchecks rather than full examinations. As for the claim that I never pointed to specific examples, here and here, the message referenced when I said "mix o Scots an Inglis" e.g. "A'm a trusted editor on other Wikimedia projects, including simplewiki, plwiki, mediawiki and others." If ye're unable to form a full sentence in Scots then it calls into question yer ability with the language. I admit that I failed to consider both the bot and the operator when approving the request; to quote en:Wikipedia:Bot policy, " In addition, prospective bot operators should be editors in good standing, and with demonstrable experience with the kind of tasks the bot proposes to do." and BZPN is too fresh and too inexperienced with scowiki and Scots in my opinion to be considered an editor in good standing. Running the gadget without approval, wikilawyering, never making it explicit that the list would be used for translation work, failing to get the sign off on the list, none of that improved their standing.

As for me bringing up the simplewiki RfA, frankly I was pissed off with the attitude and threats to invoke UCOC. Something that was conveniently left out of the report. Ye also made zero attempt to address the rest of the community (they need kicking up the rear but they do respond sometimes) and instead launched another UCOC case. CiphriusKane (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that BZPN remains unblocked, nor did they make any request to unblock the bot or clarify their stance before launching this case, something that they have form on doing 1 CiphriusKane (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About alleged "ultimatum": the statement I wrote was: Either ye want the ScotsBot [...] or me an the bot will step awa fae this wiki tae save ye ony mair bother [...]. This was conditional language expressed during escalating conflict. It was not a declaration of departure. It was not a resignation. It was not a threat. Characterising it as an "ultimatum" assigns bad faith to a statement that explicitly left the decision open. Under UCoC §2.1, good faith should be assumed, not replaced with the most negative possible interpretation. You have also stated that you were "pissed off" and that you brought up my Simple English RfA and cross-wiki history in that context. That confirms my concern: unrelated cross-wiki matters were introduced during a local discussion as a reaction to frustration and to my reference to the UCoC. Section 3.2 explicitly addresses abuse of seniority and position. Escalating reputational issues because you were angry about a UCoC reminder is not neutral technical review. You describe my reference to the UCoC as if it were escalation. What I wrote was: "Your messages, especially drawing attention to prior blocks and suggesting misconduct, may fall under UCoC 3.1 [...] I encourage you to read and follow the global standards under UCoC and to evaluate my edits and actions on their merits within scowiki." That is not a threat. It is a request to follow global conduct standards. Pointing to the UCoC when reputational escalation occurs is not intimidation. It is invoking the framework we are all bound by. I have repeatedly stated: I do not dispute that language competence is required. However, the categorical statement that I "clearly dinna hae the leid skills" was made without content diffs or linguistic analysis. The general statement that part of the wiki’s problems are caused by people "learning Scots" frames learners as a structural issue. My existing articles (e.g. sco:Karol Nawrocki, sco:Rafał Trzaskowski, sco:Bishop) were not evaluated in this discussion. Competence can be assessed. Generalised framing of learners as a cause of systemic harm is a different matter. Judging my competences based on the sandboxes in my userspace and my statements in discussions, and then assigning me to a certain group of disruptive - in your view - editors (users "learning Scots") on that basis, feels like language discrimination to me. BZPN (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You're referring to WP:FLOUNCE, but I've only been a new editor on scowiki for about two weeks. Being new to scowiki I had absolutely no reason to leave a project I'd just joined. FLOUNCE doesn't seem to apply here; even if you acknowledge it does, it does not give you any right to remove me from the wiki yourself. BZPN (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ye've had ample opportunity to clarify onwiki, because like I said only the bot was blocked (and blocking unauthorised bots is common practice 1 2). Instead of clarifying yer position, ye started this case instead while crying foul. Rather than merely explain the matter and show that ye'd had any introspection, all I've seen is the same wikilawyering, walls of text and hiding behind the UCoC to excuse behaviour. That is what pissed me off, a complete dismissal of my concerns hidden in a lecture of wikilawyering. Also, do ye intend to bring up a case about Simplewiki's one strike rule? Because that would similarly be "drawing attention to prior blocks and suggesting misconduct" in this same scenario. Also, I doubt it's unreasonable to expect learners, especially learners that are unable to form a complete sentence in Scots or be able to tell what's good and what's obviously bogus (e.g. thinking that "belongin" is Scots), to act under the guidance of experienced speakers. That is why most of the learners that created the mess remain unblocked, and why we've been working on tasks for beginners, that included the stuff the bot was doing. I'd rather learners do basic clean up and maintenance instead of create articles or run their own gadgets. As for those created articles, they all ha[ve|d] grammatical issues.

In fact this entire spiel is just full of a refusal to take any responsibility or introspection for yer own behaviour. I quote: "Either ye want the ScotsBot for whit it actually daes, as clearly set oot in the documentation, or me an the bot will step awa fae this wiki tae save ye ony mair bother, hostility, or accusations. The choice is yours." This was in response to me asking questions about the block and why ye were running the gadget without approval or consultation. Zero reassurances that the gadget translation would stop, or that appropriate time would be given to analyse the source list, just passing the buck to me. I fully believe that statement, especially the last part, fits the spirit of WP:FLOUNCE.

Also as another note - the discussion was open for one week before approval was given, while scowiki tends to leave them open for at least a month to provide ample opportunity for other editors to chime in. I'd also forgotten to notify the scowiki Discord about the discussion (I'm aware that this sort of behaviour is discouraged on enwiki due to canvassing concerns, but it's the quickest way to notify the editing community of discussions with a neutrally worded message). I acted in haste in issuing an approval and I'll keep this in mind should a similar situation arise in future CiphriusKane (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

Several reasons for this. Firstly, I don't see that all local methods have been exhausted. Secondly, I don't see CiphriusKane's conduct mentioned as a breach of UCoC. If you say Either ye want the ScotsBot [...] or me an the bot will step awa fae this wiki tae save ye ony mair bother [...], then the assumption that you'd leave if they didn't accept the bot feels obvious to me. So, the first claim about it being unfounded doesn't really make sense to me. Secondly, I struggle to see this as explicit language-based discrimination; you could have felt it as such, but to me this is far from that. A level of language competency is required for writing an encyclopedia.--BRP^ever 11:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Valid criticism is not automatically a UCoC violation. I don't see UCoC violations here. Please take the criticism seriously. --Ghilt (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A project can consider behavior in other projects when making decisions (for instance see English Simple's one strike guideline). A project can also determine that someone does not have enough proficiency in the language to contribute. I do think this started as a good faith misunderstanding which could have been resolved. However, the case did escalate and I do not think CiphriusKane's conduct violates the UCoC or the Enforcement Guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see UCoC violations. The issue needs to de-escalate and be solved locally. This seems to me a promising step in that direction. --Civvì (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see UCoC violations here. Luke 081515 22:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

This has been seen by the U4C. --Civvì (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The request is declined by 5 U4C members and hence closed. Luke 081515 22:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]