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.
Shortcuts:
  • 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] m.Wikipedia.org: (aw) Eedit pages[eedit soorce]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like sco.m.wikipedia.org, 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: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. 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: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=0

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 31.185.199.62 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]

MOOT

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.

Recommendation

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)
Extended content

Survey[eedit soorce]

Should this user be banned from editing further on this site?

  • Aye.MJLTauk 19:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Aye - James says this is happenin acause he disnae toe the line. A'm sayin this is happenin cause James wis askit bi MJL, MHS an Cobra tae stap botherin fowk. Yet James has persisted. Jest twa days agae, oan 15 September 2020, weel efter MJL, MHS an Cobra askit him tae stap contactin fowk tae drum up support fur his ideas, he did exactly aat Discord comment. He ignores warnings, he has shawn nae intent oan listenin tae us unless we're agreein wi his daft plans, he has tried tae circumvent the community we've upbig here. It feels tae me lik James is tryin tae owerride the native spekers an tak control ae the wiki. Ironic gien hou we ended up in this bourach acause ae an American wi little unnerstaundin ae the leid actin as if he kent best an refusin tae listen tae natives, an noo we got an American wi little unnerstaundin ae the leid actin as if he kens best an refusin tae listen tae natives. While this action willnae stap him fae taukin tae the press, presentin false appearances ae fit's happenin oan Twitter, or harassin fowk oan Discord, it will discredit ony claim he has tae bein oor spokesman CiphriusKane (tauk) 21:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No - We have no reason to cite a English Wikipedia policy in Scots Wikipedia. We should first introduce a banning policy here first. No opinion on an indefinite block (with possibly to appeal as usual).--GZWDer (tauk) 13:47, 18 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 79.73.243.47'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.


Article on famous Yugoslavian, Macedonian and Serbian scientist Ratko Janev[eedit soorce]

Dear Admeenistrators, sorry for writing in English. Could I ask you to create short article on famous Yugoslavian, Macedonian and Serbian scientist professor Ratko Janev [3][4]. Thank you very much.178.148.109.252 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleting files[eedit soorce]

@MJL, Soothrhins, and My hat stinks: Kindly delete the files (poster, animated characters) listed at Special:UnusedFiles as they should be deleted if not used. Thanks. --Minorax (tauk) 04:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Minorax: We may have kinda sorta removed our ability to delete these files on a policy level with the latest WP:CSD policy. We need to pass Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/saundpit before we can delete them. –MJLTauk 16:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: How do I create a nomination for the files? Also if an article is deleted after a discussion, related fair use files should also be deleted in the process. --Minorax (tauk) 06:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobility Tom[eedit soorce]

There is an IP editor kent tae us as Nobility Tom. His area o interest is European nobility an thair genealogy. The problem here is aat Tom haes limitit Scots ability an haes makit naur twa thoosan pages on sindry nobility wi nae regaird fur Scots grammar, spellin or notability, an a dinnae coont a body's genes as bein notable. His pages tend tae conseist o a leet o the body's faimily an thair teitles, aften unreferenced. Gien foo we'r tryin tae clean up the Scotchins on the wiki an redd up the airticles, haein somebody fa kin pit oot Scotched airticles aat need reddin faster nor we kin sort em is conter tae iss aim. We jist dinnae hae the fowk needit tae keep up. He haes been wairned fower time at least aboot iss an asked tae get help wi his Scots (1 2 3 4) but he haes refused tae tak heed o the requests, claimin disability. As sic, a'm appenin a discussion aboot his editin behaviour. A kin see twa possibilities here:

  1. Tom is banned fae editin fur incompetence an refusal tae heed wairnins
  2. Tom is banned fae editin the airticle mainspace. Gin he wishes tae edit, he kin uise tauk pages tae ask fur help

A'm aa fur haein fowk editin, but there gets tae a pynt faur gweed feth edits dae mair hairm nor gweed, an Tom haes sadly gotten tae iss pynt.

Additionally, we shid conseider fit tae dae wi his airticles. We kin aither lea em as is or dae a mass VfD similar tae fit we've deen wi ither Scotchers CiphriusKane (tauk) 20:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

New possibility - gien Tom's ill feth attecks on ither uisers (cryin Favonian a bully an giein misleadin testimony anent his block on enwiki) an his global lock (LouisPhilippeCharles lockit in 2010, LouisePhilippeCharlesNew lockit in 2016), a'm addin a stracht up block tae iss proponal CiphriusKane (tauk) 06:02, 4 Januar 2021 (UTC)


Hello, this is Tom. I'll be brutally honest wi/with you/ye all/aw. So in 2012, I had/haed a brain injury (some scumbag assaulted on a night out causing me to have a brain injury) and I used to have an account on enwiki but that was/wis ripped away from/frae me a year or two/twa before/afore and I did make huge contributions from/frae making ages/articles/categories etc. I have tried to email the arbs committee but was then told my email had been blocked :/ Anyway, the reason I have edited on scowiki so much is partly because I enjoy doing so but also to try to increase the amount of/o article names that are actually correct, for example Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon was her correct name, enwiki had her article as Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre, Penthièvre had nothing to do with her name. It was her father's title. Thus irrelevant and above all, wrong. If that makes any sense at all? I honestly do not want to cause any trouble, hand on heart I really don't I do sort of feel that Wikipedia as a whole is very dismissive of users (registered and/or anonymous) and does not actually realise that we are actual human beings. I don't feel like I'm treated like one, certainly by enwiki (a certain User:Favonian is an outright bully and seems to blame ANY IP address as me purely because he/she is an admin and a bully) As I said I honestly don't want any trouble of any kind, and am truly sorry if I've caused anything like that it truly is not my intention. I don't even know if I should write this to be honest but feel the need to at least give a tiny bit of an explanation. Thank you for your time and I am sorry, happy new year too. Signed Tom. 51.6.94.254 (talk) 21:52, 2 Januar 2021 (UTC)
@51.6.94.254: This raises a few questions. What do you mean your email was blocked? Did the arbs committee say it had been blocked or did it nae send? And when you say your account was "ripped away", what does that mean? Looks to me like it could mean anything from a lost password to a global block.
FWIW, I can sympathise with being annoyed at enwiki's common name stuff (stuff like Grace O'Malley, it's rather Anglocentric and disrespectful to other cultures). We've also all got our own areas of interest/speciality, but part of the problem here is that this wiki has been a dumping ground for people's interests for the better part of a decade, regardless of how notable they were or how well written the articles were (such as Chilean newspaper editors or heavy metal bands) and we're just trying to clean it all up. And just to make it clear, there are some articles you've started that can be improved (such as Eugen Alexander, 1st Prince o Thurn an Taxis), so it's nae all bad.
Also, the point of this noticeboard is to have an open discussion. To exclude you from it would be to make it a kangaroo court. There are still other paths we can take, and frankly I see blocking as a last resort. I have another couple of ideas that could work but you must work with us for these to happen, Tom. Do you understand? CiphriusKane (tauk) 23:17, 2 Januar 2021 (UTC)
Hello earthlings, sorry for the late reply. I made a mistake. I meant my email was blocked one the *request an account* form thing you do online not the arbs. I have also emailed the wiki stewards and generally get ignored, mind you one reply did call my self pitying and puerile (which understandably made my blood boil lol) even then, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaages ago I did get into contact with a then en admin called User:Salvidrim! who was able to revive my old/original account (called LouisPhilippeCharles) and within 30 minutes of editing happily it was ripped away from me by my darling friend UserFavonian. Also, CiphriusKane, regarding the cleaning up I totally understand your point Chilean newspaper editors did make me laugh out loud I won't lie :') 51.6.94.254 (talk) 15:58, 3 Januar 2021 (UTC)
Tom, we can easily check your claims. I'd advise against presenting misinformation and making bad faith statements about other users. Care to explain the global lock on your account? CiphriusKane (tauk) 04:42, 4 Januar 2021 (UTC)
Additional question - Tom, yer comment about the "bullying" admin coupled with this is frankly giving me cause for concern. The image I'm getting here is one of spite, that because other editors disagreed with ye, they acted out of malice. Care to explain all this? CiphriusKane (tauk) 06:02, 4 Januar 2021 (UTC)
(reply addit fae IP's tawk page)
Hello, just saw this and the your reply on the Admeenistrators' noticebuird. The reason I mentioned my brain injury is because my memory truly is AWFUL (may sound like a convenient excuse but sadly is a fact and trust me I hate it).


[5] <- IF YOU think I'm being dramatic :/



And Favonian does seem to have it in for me. I have even seen categories name suspected sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles (created by Favonian) who've edited pages that I know literally nothing about and are thus of no interest to me. As I mentioned on this link [6] I do honestly feel that I am an easy target to ignore/dismiss by someone who has the position of an admin and that to me is not fair. I am another human being, you know with feelings. Plus the brain injury has left me with a fairly sharp tongue at times (out of pure frustration regarding these circumstances). But being treated like a contagious disease is not fair when I had done a lot of work on Wikipedia prior to it being ripped away from me by someone who had the power to do so. Please remember I am another human being, just because you have not seen my face nor heard my voice does not mean it's not true. Also would it help if i left my email address for whomever to ask me things directly just for ease and speed at all? Alas my email is tom.june13@gmail.com Thank you for your patience. Signed Tom 51.6.94.254 (talk) 14:08, 4 Januar 2021 (UTC)
I just realised I could reply here and I wanted to say that saying I've misrepresented the truth is not entirely fair because as I have consistently said to you I have had a brain injury and my memory truly is abysmal. I was editing Wikipedia while at uni from 2008-20011 and mustve been blocked/banned/removed after 2011 roughly as I had the brain injury in 2012 and the bits I do remember are very fuzzy nor are they in sync. thus forgetting about the global ban. (if that makes sense?) As I also said I did contact an admin on enwiki by the name of Salvidrim! (I think he's no longer an admin as of this moment in time) and he was able to revive the LouisPhilippeCharles account with the word New at the end. Within I'd say roughly 20 minutes (while correcting the article about User:PBS I was again blocked by Favonian. I do not see how it is ok for a select few to treat others like dirt on their shoes purely because they have the tools and ability to do so. How is that fair. As I've also said I HONESTLY DO NOT want ANY TROUBLE at all, jus thought that by doing some work on scowiki I could at least continue to contribute quietly while possibly bumping into someone with the power to help me return to enwiki using the right channels. I did consider emailing the request an account on another email address then thought if I was to do that I'd be gunned down and hailed as a sockpuppet yet again, so feels like I can't win. =[ Please help me signed Tom


P.s. thge link I put above is a newspaper article about me being assaulted and the brain injury, I thought I'd share it just in case you or whomever thought I was just a bit of a mad fantascist [lol]
The misinformation here is that it wisnae Favonian that blocked you but Worm That Turned, and it was more like 3 hours rather than 20 mins Block log CiphriusKane (tauk) 05:37, 6 Januar 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. To be fair that username does sound familiar (Worm That Turned) so you must be correct to be fair, you also seem to be missing my point regarding my brain injury, as I said the few memories I have are very very very sketchy and not quite in sync (not just regarding Wikipedia, but my actual life prior to injury) the last thing I do remember editing on enwiki prior to being blocked was correcting the name Marie Gabrielle Éléonore de Bourbon (she obviously signed as M g e de bourbon, as we can see the signature by her own hand, I fail to see how one can argue with a signature written by the person the article is about) and I do roughly remember that. Slightly unrelated but the last time I emailed the stewards on the 9th of December I was told the following Your ticket number is #2020120910012008. if that means anything to anyone? I haven't had a reply/any further contact regarding that email yet either. It also says IRC: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC. which I'm not sure how to go about or even whom to contact, let alone the channels to do so. I'd just like to be treated like a human being to be honest. Signed Tom 51.6.94.254 (talk) 13:03, 6 Januar 2021 (UTC)

Comment - A hae blockit the IP bein uised bi Tom but left him wi his tawk page. Gin he wishes tae reply, he can dae sae on his TP an hae somebody pit it ower here. The raisonin fur mah block is his accoont wis globally lockit athort aa Wikimedia projecks in 2010 an 2016 an he haes presentit misleadin info an disparaged ither uisers CiphriusKane (tauk) 04:46, 4 Januar 2021 (UTC)

Comment - (en) As a genealogist myself, I understand how frustrating it can be to find inaccurate names online. However, sco.wiki is not the platform for a hobby like this. If I created a page about John Smith of Cowdenbeath (1664-1700), Scottish coalminer and listed all of his "issue", it would be deleted right away on notability grounds. The same should be true for Henrietta Anna-Marie de Bourbon-Riesling-Burgundy of House Messerschmitt-Braunschweig (1664-1665).

Has Tom heard of https://familypedia.wikia.org/wiki/Family_History_and_Genealogy_Wiki ?

Plenty of the people added by Tom to the sco.wiki are on this wikia site. I imagine Tom's pages would get much more traffic, and be much more useful to those interested minor nobles over at that site. Entohist (tauk) 11:11, 4 Januar 2021 (UTC)

Support for option 2. If someone is unwilling or unable to create articles of passable quality they should at the bare minimum collaborate with someone who can. I recognise this isn't a great situation to be in, memory issues suck, but we just can't have a constant stream of low-quality unsourced articles of questionable notability. It's considerably more work to bring a low-quality article up to a reasonable standard than it is to make low-qualty articles in the first place, we just don't have the editors to fix it. They have been notified of issues 6 times on the user pages previously mentioned, they have confirmed reading at least one of those after a temporary block was issued but they did not change their behaviour. If this doesn't pass it seems the only alternative would to keep issuing warnings that keep getting ignored while the low-qualty articles keep rolling in. — Forerin nae adheebit commend addit bi my hat stinks (talkcontribs)

  • Comment. As I have previously already signed the General Confidentiality Agreement, I am going to reach out to the Inglis Arbitration Committee to see what information they have regarding Nobility Tom that may help us in this case. –MJLTauk 16:47, 8 Januar 2021 (UTC)

Crosswiki activities[eedit soorce]

The purpose of this section is primarily to expand upon the ban mentioned by Tom, but will touch on some of his other crosswiki activities. I had hoped to hear back from MJL regarding Tom before writing this, but it seems all their investigation did was turn up a copyright claims/hoaxes case against LPC, with their emails to Tom left unanswered (likely due to Tom's memory problems).

On 29 December 2015, Salvidrim! blocked LouisPhillipeCharlesNew as a block evader pending an appeal then unblocked an hour later on the condition that LPC refrain from moving pages. He then started adding content that was reverted on Louise Françoise de Bourbon, Duchess of Bourbon and altering names in templates, which was deemed to be a violation of enwiki's system gaming policy. Worm That Turned proceeded to block Tom and started a discussion seeking a community ban. Tom's reaction was to be incivil towards his detractors, accusing them of immaturity, of being troublemakers, and of acting in spite. His messages led to his talk page access being revoked. The only role Favonian had in this (aside from being the original blocking admin) was blocking LPC in 2011 and supporting the community ban (which Salvidrim! also supported by the way).

It should also be mentioned that Tom has form of abusing those he sees as opposing him. This includes calling them self important and intolerant and calling them bullies (as well as crosswiki slandering). He also seems keen to stress that he's a human being, and from his messages I'm guessing what he means is that nae being allowed to do as he wishes is akin to inhumane treatment (see this message for example). He also seems keen to stress that he's done naething wrong, despite the incivil treatment of others.

So Tom, from what I'm seeing there's 3 major flaws in yer crosswiki antics here. First is the insistence that yer humanity protects you from any consequence against yer actions, and that having any action taken against ye is dehumanising; second is the insistence that ye've never done anything wrong, despite conducting what could be seen as a crosswiki spiteful campaign of incivility and slander against another user(s); third is that disruptive editing and vandalism are the same thing, which as this whole AN shows isnae the case, as yer behaviour on Scowiki is disruptive (mass creation of badly written articles) but isnae vandalism. What have ye to say about all this? CiphriusKane (tauk) 15:01, 17 Januar 2021 (UTC)

Further update[eedit soorce]

Apologies fur nae dealin wi iss seener. On 24 Februar Tom wis blockit fae editin the mainspace as per fit we discussed abeen (edit: block haes been convertit tae an IP speceific block insteid o a range block), wi the unnerstaundin aat he wis alloued tae edit tauk pages tae suggest impruivements tae airticles insteid. Fooiver, his ainly edits syn then hae been tae suggest page renames, wi naehing bein deen anent the state ae the airticles thairsels.

In late Mairch, Tom got hissel a new accoont an stairtit editin the mainspace again. The seicont a wis shuir it wis Tom a blockit the accoont (aat haes sin been global lockit). Tom's repone wis tae caa me pouer abuisin bully. Gien iss, a am nae langer willin tae pit up wi him. As sic, a'm proponin aat his block be turnt intae a steid-wide indefinite block.

Courtesy pings fur ither contreibutors: @Entohist: @My hat stinks: @MJL:

Support - He willna chynge. Iss hyperbole, accuisin ithers ae pouer abuise, an general unpleasantness haes been happenin fur mony yeir, an ivery time he's caa'd oot on it he claims aat it's nae his faut, he's got a disability. A hae ivery sympathy fur his injury, but it disna gie him the richt tae thraw tantrums ivery time summat disna gie his ain wey. A'll be dealin wi aa the nobility airticles iss month as weel, stairtin wi a VfD aat will hopefu-lik lead tae a new temp CSD category CiphriusKane (tauk) 20:29, 2 Apryle 2021 (UTC)

Deen CiphriusKane (tauk) 22:21, 2 Apryle 2021 (UTC)

Support - The amount o time sornt awa bi NT isna real. Admins athort a wheen o wikis hiv gien him mair nor eneuch chances. NT's gart a fair skelp o the wiki intil a cowp for no notable nobility. @CiphriusKane: haes gien Tom ilka bit scowth tae redd up his act, an shuidna hae tae thole ony mair snash aff o'm. Entohist (tauk) 11:33, 3 Apryle 2021 (UTC)

(response fae Tom:) How am I going to be able to defend myself? Even that is ripped away from me

Ok, so I'm blocked on here too and I have one question, how am I supposed to reply to you/whomever accusing me of things I have not done. For example, I looked on the list of my so-called sockpuppets and can assure you the following 5 are/were NOT me and had nothing to do with me.


  1. Mlle Fuji
  2. Bigfathistorygeek
  3. Bigfathistorygeek690
  4. Dutchman78
  5. Earphone123

See another example of me being blamed for something that another user does not like. Again how is that fair? And I've been criticized for having the audacity to say it feels like some people behave unfairly. I imagine my IP will now be blocked because I'm a nobody and am, once again, at the mercy of people who have the power to treat me like rubbish. — Forerin nae adheebit commend addit bi 31.185.199.111 (talkcontribs)

(en) @Molandfreak: Courtesy ping as Tom's message concerns your actions CiphriusKane (tauk) 17:44, 3 Apryle 2021 (UTC)
  • (in Inglis) Tom, in order to request an unlock of one of your accounts, you have to appeal by sending an email to stewards@wikimedia.org. Unfortunately, your actions of ban, block, and lock evasion for over a decade mean that you will have to present a very convincing case to the stewards. You have to demonstrate that you understand why you have had sanctions placed on you, and that you won't repeat these actions on any Wikimedia project. If the stewards unlock one of your accounts, you'll need to present a similar case to every project to which you have been blocked from editing. On English Wikipedia for example, your only reasonable shot at doing this is if you wait six months without making a single edit anywhere on that site, from any account or IP address. If your appeal is accepted and the community lets you edit again, you will likely have heavy restrictions on page moving and anything else that led to your blocks/bans. Be sure you understand those restrictions, and ask another editor to make changes that would violate them if you were to make these changes yourself.
Throughout this process, don't tell the stewards, reviewing admins, or other community members that you think they're bullying you or that you think people are out to get you. These actions are considered uncivil and can be used against you throughout the appeal process. Taking accountability for the actions that led to your restrictions, demonstrating willingness to change, and constructively reaching out to others if you're unsure about a policy are the only things you can do that will give you a shot at editing again. If the community doesn't approve of you returning to edit, don't get mad or try to start a pity party; try again in a few months. Many editors have been unblocked from editing Wikipedia by taking these steps.--Molandfreak (tauk) 18:55, 3 Apryle 2021 (UTC)