Wikipedia:Admeenistrators' noticebuird

Frae Wikipedia, the free beuk o knawledge
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Walcome tae the admeenistrators' noticeboard
This page is for postin information an issues that affect admeenistrators.
  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion o admeenistration methods, ban proposals, baur reviews, an backlog notices.
  • WP:AN
  • WP:ANB

When ye stairt a discussion aboot an editor, ye must leave notice on the editor's collogue page.

Ye mey uise {{subst:AN-notice}} tae dae sae.

[Global proposal] (aw) Eedit pages[eedit soorce]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Sorry for writing in English but I thought as administrators you would be interested. Thanks, Nemo 22:26, 1 Mairch 2015 (UTC)

Improved search in deleted pages archive[eedit soorce]

Please help translate to your language

During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. This feature is now ready for production deployment, and will be enabled on all wikis, except Wikidata.

Right now, the feature is behind a feature flag - to use it on your wiki, please go to the Special:Undelete page, and add &fuzzy=1 to the URL, like this: Then search for the pages you're interested in. There should be more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension).

We plan to enable this improved search by default on all wikis soon (around August 1, 2017). If you have any objections to this - please raise them with the Discovery team via email or on this announcement's discussion page. Like most Mediawiki configuration parameters, the functionality can be configured per wiki. Once the improved search becomes the default, you can still access the old mode using &fuzzy=0 in the URL, like this:

Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to wiki admins.

Thank ye! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 25 Julie 2017 (UTC)

I need help reviewing a Global RFC[eedit soorce]

Dear admins, I am preparing a Global Request for Comments about financial support for admins that might be relevant for you .

Can you please review the draft and give me some feedback about how to improve it? Thank you.

MassMessage sent by Micru on 18:00, 7 Juin 2018 (UTC)

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements[eedit soorce]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 6 Dizember 2018 (UTC)

Help needed to fix cut-and-paste move[eedit soorce]

Please can an admeenistrator merge the page history o Category:Liberalism into the history o Category:Leeberalism. (For instructions, please see en: Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves). Thank you, --Sije (tauk) 19:47, 13 Dizember 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If the process is complicated or takes much effort, ye can simply delete the page Category:Leeberalism, an then I will [undo my chynges to Category:Liberalism, an efter that, I will] muive the page Category:Liberalism til “Category:Leeberalism”. Thank ye, --Sije (tauk) 19:22, 14 Dizember 2018 (UTC)

@Sije: I deleted the category, as idk how to merge histories. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:35, 14 Dizember 2018 (UTC)
Thank ye, --Sije (tauk) 19:38, 14 Dizember 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism[eedit soorce]

Hi, I point out the IP which turns out to be LouisPhilippeCharles in evasion, as highlighted here. Best regards. --Superpes15 (tauk) 12:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like vandalism to me? –MJLTauk 01:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Fixscots[eedit soorce]

Hi people, I want to thank MJL for grqnting me AWB access on the wiki.

I plan on adding the above mentioned template to every affected page touched by AG. I know this may be controversial so I'm here asking if anyone objects.

I dont speak Scots, but want to relieve some of the workload of the actual scots speakers. Starzoner (tauk) 03:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(en) @Starzoner:Hi, my worry is it might interfere with the outcome of the Wikimedia discussion? If it isn't incongruous with that, I think opinion should also be canvassed from non-admin editors too, as it would be a pretty major change. soothrhins (tauk) 07:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Starzoner: Doing that is a bad idea until the meta proposals all close. –MJLTauk 07:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: Meta RFCs run for years, [redacted]. Would you please allow some respect for Starzoner's request to perform a mere fraction of the proposal you have indicated you support there? James Salsman (tauk) 08:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of Meta RfCs, this type of decision isn't one for any one admin, but one that would need consensus from editors. soothrhins (tauk) 12:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
ok. I will refrain from doing so until the meta discussion concludes. Starzoner (tauk) 11:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have redacted the attempt at outing me. –MJLTauk 14:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(en) Partial block discussion[eedit soorce]


Please see m:Requests for comment/Global ban of James SalsmanMJLTauk 05:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not particularly happy that it's come to this. When I first asked to become an admin on this wiki last year, I very much hoped I would never have to use my admin tools to block a good faith contributor. However, James Salsman is a good faith user who I feel needs to site banned.

Meta RFC ban

After receiving a long and detailed warning from Vermont about his commandeering of the Meta RFC to suite his own needs and desires (without regards for what Scots speakers really cared to contribute), James Salsman went on to be unproductive to a great extent. This ultimately led to him being banned from further contributing to the RFC.

It would appear Mr. Salsman didn't really get the hint, since he has since appealed it in order to be allowed to question my update on Scots Wikipedia statistics.

Off wiki

Mr. Salsman has consistently pinged me on the discord and tweeted at me complaining about my onwiki warning not to nominate further users for adminship.

He received a warning from my_hat_stinks for this type of behavoir in an attempt to get users to support his RFC. Here is an example of this kind of thing as it happened on-wiki. Ironically, my_hat_stinks was a user he nominated for adminship, but that didn't stop him from publicly accusing me of using him as some sort of puppet or proxy on the Discord.

Talk to the press

I have made it known privately that he is no position of authority to speak to the press about Scots Wikipedia. His proposals and methods have consistently been on the fringe side of the cleanup efforts and have always received pushback from native Scots speakers. Still, that didn't stop him from acting like this wasn't the case to Stephen Harrison.

For now, the community is using a wide variety of technical tools to address the issues, including posting notices on top of AG's articles. The Wikipedia editor James Salsman also used a Scottish government word list to identify about 1,000 articles that have English words that should not appear in Scots. According to Salsman's tool, the Scots article on Rafael Nadal, for example, has 93 non-Scots English words, including stay, which, and friend.

On the Discord, multiple Scots speakers warned him this was not an effective tool because several English words appear on that list are also used in Scots just with different meanings. The word list was never meant to be used for something this, but it was supposed to be an educational tool to give a basic overview of what the Scots language even is. Misrepresenting the effectiveness of his tools to members of the media is damaging to both the project and the language. It also (tragically) overshadows the actual productive work done by native Scots speakers which have led to substantial improvements to articles here.

Scots leid

This leads me to my next point; James Salsman has been reminded multiple times that he does not speak the language at all. He has no stake in this project. Despite the recent controversy, Scots speakers have made it known that they don't mind if non-speakers contribute to this wiki so long as it's doe in a productive manner. As someone who doesn't speak Scots myself, I should know. It's absolutely critical members of this endangered language lead the efforts to restore and revitalise it. The only amount of good someone like me does is as a glorified cheerleader by promoting their initiatives and protecting their works. All I can proactively do is translate their ideas into tangible actions we can all accomplish together. When I have outlived my usefulness there, I fully plan on not overstaying my welcome.

Mr. Salsman does not seem to understand that kind of role. In his mind, he has a way forward for this project and refuses to let anyone tell him otherwise. He wants to do things his own way. Everytime I have tried to tell him that he should step back and listen to other people, I have been shot down since I'm not a native speaker. Still, when a native speaker does try to say something similar, he just dismisses their concerns.


As James Salsman presents a substantial potential liability to this project moving forward, I can only suggest we issue a siteban to prevent further disruption.MJLTauk 19:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer, CiphriusKane, Soothrhins, My hat stinks, and James Salsman: Based on discussion below, I am switching my recommendation to a partial block for project namespace and an indefinite restriction not to comment on policy changes. –MJLTauk 16:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Do you intend for the restriction on policy comments to extend to Twitter? Mediawiki? There is no bright-line definition of what kind of policy comments you object to. Censorship is not an appropriate solution to any of the problems that the wiki or language face. James Salsman (tauk) 15:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Survey (2)[eedit soorce]

  • A partial block as proposed seems reasonable. I think James's intentions are good, but a lot of his activity on the Meta RfC and Scots Wikipedia itself has been disruptive, and he seems to have little interest in listening to other people's feedback or learning from his mistakes. So sadly, I have to support. PiRSquared17 (tauk) 18:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: can you please give me an example of where it seemed that I had little interest in listening to feedback or failed to learn from a mistake? It is impossible to respond to such vague accusations. James Salsman (tauk) 18:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Here are a couple examples:
  • Political comments on Meta-Wiki: You made an analogy about the situation with Haiti and the Clintons being similar to ScoWiki and the Wikimedia community, and even though multiple users told you that they thought the comment was an unproductive tangent, you doubled down on it instead of simply dropping the stick. This was quickly followed by a partial ban from a Meta-Wiki admin. Then you brought the analogy up again in appealing the ban.
  • Repeated spammy/Canvassy solicitation of comments after warnings: In late August, there was a discussion about your comments on the Meta-Wiki RfC, and one of the concerns (see's and Soothrhins's comments) was your solicitation of feedback on proposals from random users, the Scottish government, and other people off-wiki. That's not to say soliciting feedback is bad, but the way you did it was, if I may be blunt, annoying. Pinging a ton of users who have little involvement in the situation is probably not going to help. See for example your pinging of Trizek (WMF) on Mercat Cross on September 10. ScoWiki admin User:My hat stinks subsequently warned you not to ping specific users and ask them to comment on your proposals both on- and off-wiki, but you continued to do this at least two more times on the Discord server after the warning. (See CiphriusKane's comment above for a link to one such Discord comment, and see [1] for another.) This is off-wiki behavior but is still an example of "failed to learn from a mistake".
I hope these two cases are sufficient to show where I'm coming from. I think more things could be added here, but that's all I have time for at the moment. PiRSquared17 (tauk) 10:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[eedit soorce]

I have not edited here in a week, and I have never edited in article space. This is clearly retribution for going to the press and disagreeing with MJL off-wiki. Bans should be preventative, not punitive. James Salsman (tauk) 19:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Naw James, this isnae retribution. We've nae issue wi fowk havin disagreements, but fit we dae take issue wi is fowk bangin their drum, repeatedly tryin tae take ower the project, an circumventin the community cause it disnae suit em. We're tryin tae prevent further hairm ye may cause wi yer refusal tae listen. We've got lang term plans fur sortin the wiki, an ye an Utro actin lik ye're the gatekeepers ae the leid isnae helpin CiphriusKane (tauk) 21:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I asked Utro to not do the mass-move he said he wanted. I've never done anything beyond measure the extent of the problem in ways that nobody else had, and asked others for consensus towards solutions. The draftspace proposal (#7 on the Meta RFC) was not even mine to begin with, but it is the only such proposal with multiple support and no opposition. I've never claimed to be a spokesperson as you implied above. James Salsman (tauk) 03:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

While I do agree with some sanctions being put in place, I'm not sure a site ban is the best way to go here. From what I can see there hasn't been any notable on-wiki activity on this account since I left that message on their talk page so I'm not sure how effective a site ban would be, but either way wouldn't a topic ban on Wiki policy be more appropriate? That should block any RFCs on non-routine subjects (mass moves/delets, namespaces, word blacklists, bots, admin proposals, etc) which seem to be the root of the problem from this user. Definitely restricting for a power user, but wouldn't prevent normal good-faith article edits. From what I can see they haven't defaced an article. my_hat_stinks (tauk) 23:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@My hat stinks: It's a fair point. My concerns are three-fold:
(1) He will try to drive a truck through even the smallest of loopholes given how little cooperative he can be at times.
(2) He seems to never expressed a desire to contribute except on his own terms. I can see this becoming a problem if he tries to take his proposals into his own hands and enact them through piece-meal semi-automatic translations in an effort to "save" this wiki/the Scots language. That or he could start just tagging every article created by AG (regardless if a native Scots user has cleaned it) for deletion.
(3) I'm skeptical, given his tendency to edit with alternate accounts or while logged out, that he can be trusted on any level not to cause this wiki further damage in a misguided attempt at playing a hero.
I'll be honest, though; I'm a bit jaded. We have so much work to worry about to get this wiki sorted, and it feels like every week more gets added to the pile. I just don't want to see anyone try to add to it like this user has.
I brought this here because it shouldn't be my call, though. The community can say their part, and another admin can make the final determination whether a siteban is worth it. –MJLTauk 01:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
What loopholes are you accusing me of exploiting? Is my proposal at [2] expressing a desire to contribute on the terms of the drafify proposal, which was not mine to begin with, if and only if others agree, or not? What work have I tried to add? I have literally made zero edits to article space and you're treating me worse than the person who caused the problem to begin with. You've repeatedly insulted me and have tried to belittle me ever since others' sided with me on putting the sitenotice in both languages. James Salsman (tauk) 03:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: I'm not sure it would be appropriate to issue sanctions for something a user might do that they haven't yet done, I'm doubtful that it would be upheld if the user were to go to the arbitration committee. Regardless, on your first point about loopholes; It looks to me like topic bans have a toxic-by-association thing. If a user is under a topic ban they can't comment on any articles tangentially related to the topic, even extending as far as edit summaries and sandboxes. Any attempt to find a loophole would seem to be to be in violation of a topic ban. my_hat_stinks (tauk) 13:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer: FYI, thare is a blockin policy on Scots Wikipedia. See here. The Meta RfC ban referred to is on Wikimedia not English Wikipedia. soothrhins (tauk) 13:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but it does not discuss the term "ban". This request should be repurposed for an indefinite block.--GZWDer (tauk) 13:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer: I have just seen that MJL (who generally writes in English, as is permitted on Wikipedia pages within this wiki) linked to the English Wikipedia "banning policy". Scots Wikipedia has a "blockin policy", I assume when it was drafted "banning" was translated to "blockin". I don't think that what word en:wiki or sco:wiki uses to describe the same type of policy is the substantive issue here. soothrhins (tauk) 14:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Block and ban are two things. In many wikis, "ban" does not exist.--GZWDer (tauk) 14:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer and Soothrhins: GZWDer is correct here. –MJLTauk 16:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.