|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Brisbane meetup
Come along! Kerry (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Brisbane Meetup
|
 | |
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Lankiveil.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Lankiveil. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Lankiveil. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't Know Where Else To Put This
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.
[1]. Doc talk 12:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- I must clarify what I mean by a "plea agreement". I made 17 comments to the talk page between VM chiming in and his chilling warning. "All insults and personal attacks" means... what? Everything I said?! Doc talk 13:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do not see this comment by VM as inappropriate. He did not tell "please revert this article to my preferred version or else...". He only asked to remove personal comments about contributor(s) from an article talk page where such comments do not belong anyway. These pages only exist for discussing improvement of content. If anyone asked me to remove my personal comments about him from an article talk page, I would be happy to remove them. Content disagreements are a different matter. Here, I would still keep my arguments about content. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh please. I gave Doc a chance to strike or remove his personal attacks and insults. I could have gone to WP:AE right away. I was trying to be nice and accommodating. Now he's trying to use that against me. Sorry, but the cynicism and bad-faith of doing that is, frankly, disgusting. Well, that'll teach me to try and be nice next time. I'll just file AE reports at the first sign of trouble.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Repeating things like that, even after receiving a previous topic ban and multiple warnings, refusing to remove such comments from article talk page, and insisting on WP:AE that all their comments were appropriate looks to me as intentionally inflicting a topic ban upon himself. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Disruption. Topic bans are issued to prevent disruption. A dissenting voice is hardly disruption. Well... actually, it is! Punishment is clearly needed here. If any ban should be considered, it would be some sort of "IBAN" if it were based on personal attacks. But it is not. It's not like I didn't know you'd close ranks and rally behind VM were I to question his objectivity regarding Trump. There's not one admin among you that would dare to not toe the line when it comes to Trump. They'd be excommunicated for it with extreme prejudice. Whatever. Doc talk 09:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Your "dissenting voice" should be about content or policies. This is not a legitimate "dissenting voice", but making life miserable for another contributor. The fact that you still do not understand it (or prefer not to listen) is a reason for sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)