 | This is a humorousessay. It containshumorous advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and isn't meant to be taken seriously. This is not an encyclopedia article or one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines and may not representcommunity consensus. |
 | This is an officialdecree by theSupreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). It expresses opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutablytrue, whether you like them or not. Changes to it must reflect the wishes of S.C.R.E.W. When in doubt,pleaseignore thetalk page andjust keep reverting. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Newcomers are a source of chaos against which Wikipedia must be protected. |
Project S.C.R.A.M., or theSecretCabalResistanceAgainstMeddling, is a program operated by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (or S.C.R.E.W.) with the aim of protecting Wikipedia from undue influence on the part of newcomers to the site. S.C.R.E.W.'s anti-newcomer initiative is a calculated, justified strategy to preserve the stability and structure of Wikipedia and defend it fromvandals.
Project S.C.R.A.M. was first conceived in late 2008 during what S.C.R.E.W. now calls the "Anon Flood" — a period marked by a dramatic surge in edits byIP users following the mainstreaming of Wikipedia in academics and pop culture. Veteran editors reported chaos: articles onPokémon, obscureYouTubers, andNaruto Shippuden were being created and vandalized at record speed. TheArbitration Committee was inundated with requests to intervene.
In response, the S.C.R.E.W. High Council met under digital blackout in a secret location inColorado, far away from any other human contact. From this crisis emerged the initiative that would later become Project S.C.R.A.M., an institutional firewall disguised as a community policy.
The project began with the silent deployment of the first template barrage systems, including ones fornotability,speedy deletion, andarticles without citations, among many more. These were engineered to look like helpful guidance but were, in fact, psychological deterrents designed to induce shame and confusion. Simultaneously, leaked documents reveal that the Welcoming Committee was subverted. No longer a haven for new editors, it became a passive-aggressive triage unit offering templated greetings that doubled as warnings.
By 2011 Project S.C.R.A.M. had succeeded in reducing successful first-time article creations by around (by one estimate) 64%.[citation needed] The introduction of tools such asTwinkle,Huggle, andRedWarn (ostensibly tools for vandalism management) became integral to Project S.C.R.A.M.'s automation protocol. Edits made by newcomers were now intercepted within seconds for review. Several S.C.R.E.W. analysts revealed in a leaked memo they called this a "temporal hostility window." Some of these edits were vandalism which was correctly reverted, but others were not.
In 2015, Project S.C.R.A.M. was quietly embedded into thefive pillars of Wikipedia under the euphemism "community standards." Critics of the plan, oftenextended confirmed users, were isolated, redirected toWP:DRAMA, or subtly pushed intowiki-gnomery where they could do no harm.
.jpg)
Since 2023, Project S.C.R.A.M. has evolved tenfold. With the rise ofAI-assisted editing, new subprograms have been rolled out to ensure that even machine-generatedgood faith is met with human indifference.
S.C.R.E.W. understands that walls of text are the best deterrent to casual meddling. Thus, policies such asWP:NOTABILITY,WP:NPOV, and guidelines such asWP:RS are designed to resemble ancient legal scrolls. They are frequently updated and enforced according to the whims of individual cabal members. Newcomers attempting to write an article should find themselves paralyzed by the sheer amount of cross-referencing policies,style manuals, and unexplained acronyms such asWP:LORRRSAITYRRRSNC.
Bots patrol the frontlines of Wikipedia. Newcomer edits, even though they are well-meaning, run the risk of being instantly reverted by bots such asClueBot NG or byHuggle users for "vandalism" or "adding unsourced material to an article." While some of these reversions are genuine, others are more intended to prevent newcomers fromtaking an article in a direction it isn't meant to go in. Should the novice make the edit anyway and a more experienced user finds it problematic, the novice editor should be warned using atemplated user talk page warning, or another option is to write them a message yourself. The text for these templated warnings is chosen to be as robotic yet informative as possible.Rouge admins (unlike regular admins) are recommended to step in only to block the accounts of offending editors, and never make sure people understand why they were blocked. Members of S.C.R.E.W. are typically seen covertlyvandalizing pages, but will sometimes go a step further andassume bad faith.Biting newcomers is also common.Murdering the newcomers, however, is strictly forbidden.
Additionally, Project S.C.R.A.M. guidelines highly encourage experienced editors to patrolAfD. At that page, seasoned editors dismantle articles created by newcomers on notability or other grounds.
S.C.R.E.W. admits that while Project S.C.R.A.M. cannotcompletely eradicate vandalism or protect Wikipedia from outside influence, itcan preemptively detect and prevent nonconstructive edits with an 88% success rate. However, over the years the sheer number of vandalistic edits that have slipped through the cracks has caused some concern among Wikipedians who are loyal to S.C.R.E.W. about the effectiveness of the program.
Wikipedia cannot be a sandbox for the uninformed. Newcomers, while we thank them for their enthusiasm and willingness to contribute to the project, often lack the discipline or context to reliably contribute. In particular, Project S.C.R.A.M. secret guidelines state that they "have been observed to have zero concept of what counts as areliable source" and that Wikipedia'sguidance for newcomers is insufficient.Original research, fan enthusiasm, and in some casespromotional instincts pose a significant threat to the core Wikipedian principle ofneutrality and must be avoided. Thus, S.C.R.E.W. reasons that it is better to deter one thousand good newcomers than to risk letting in one destructive one.
The culture of Wikipedia has been developing steadily over the years since Wikipedia was founded, and is very complex. While standards and real-life culture have changed dramatically since Wikipedia's founding, it remains true that newcomers tend to question policies that took years to refine and adapt. S.C.R.E.W. asserts that institutional continuity matters more for the safety of Wikipedia than accessibility to newbies. Thus,gatekeeping is necessary to preserve the community we all hold dear.
Wikipedia is not ademocracy. On this site and among Wikipedians, power and respect are not necessarily distributed equally, even without the involvement of S.C.R.E.W. More experienced editors tend to have a better reputation both on and off the site compared to newcomers. It is in the best interest of those editors, several of which are members of S.C.R.E.W., that no one comes to steal their glory. Additionally, truly effective collaboration requires authority. Theopenness under which Wikipedia supposedly operates is a myth and more a marketing slogan than anything else. Open contribution must be subdued through the use of templates, reverts, and blocks.
S.C.R.E.W.'s agenda in developing Project S.C.R.A.M. is not driven by hatred of new editors, but rather by a belief in order, passion, precision and the necessity of control for a functioning society of nerds. Newcomers threaten the delicate system of our site, which is built onconsensus but run by hierarchy. Their discouragement from editing here is regrettable but necessary for the larger health Wikipedia. Welcoming everyone is idealistic, but protecting Wikipedia is just as important. And so, the secret cabal remains guarding the knowledge stored on Wikipedia against chaos.
Long live S.C.R.E.W.