User talk:Cool Hand Luke
- 1 Just saying hi
- 2 Answers to your questions at the Simon Collins RfC
- 3 Infobox linking RfC
- 4 This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
- 5 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 6 You've got mail!
- 7 Heccccchluuug listed at Redirects for discussion
- 8 Wasatch Front Wicnic 2016
- 9 Speedy deletion nomination of Heccccchluuug
- 10 Extended confirmed protection
- 11 Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
- 12 A new user right for New Page Patrollers
- 13 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 14 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 15 Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
- 16 Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
- 17 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 18 Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
- 19 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 20 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 21 Speakers of other languages listed at Redirects for discussion
- 22 Precious
- 23 ArbCom 2019 special circular
- 24 Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
Just saying hi
Answers to your questions at the Simon Collins RfC
In answer to your questions, Cool Hand Luke: 1 - It's a bad faith RfC because the originator never answered the questions I asked of him when attempting to discuss the edits (see the discussion directly above the RfC), and failed follow through with the 'D' portion of WP:BRD. The RfC filer has been warned more than once and by more than one administrator in regard to hounding me; the RfC is a result of that hounding. In other words, there's more to it than meets the eye. 2 - We went back and forth on the content editing-wise because of there being more to it than meets the eye (in relation to the history of the other editor's hounding behavior). This is not the first time he has sought to WP:WIN against me in an RfC or content dispute (or an AfD, or in article talk page discussions, etc.). It's just a continuation of what he's been doing for weeks. Because of the warnings he received, I had hoped the RfC would be the last time I'd have to deal with him. Obviously, he is still stalking my edits by ending up here , so it would seem my hopes were in vain. I'm not sure if posting there would equate hounding, but technically, it might. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Heccccchluuug listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Heccccchluuug. Since you had some involvement with the Heccccchluuug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Wasatch Front Wicnic 2016
Speedy deletion nomination of Heccccchluuug
A tag has been placed on Heccccchluuug, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — JFG talk 23:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
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) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Cool Hand Luke.
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.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
- NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
- Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
|Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic|
You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Speakers of other languages listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Speakers of other languages. Since you had some involvement with the Speakers of other languages redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circular
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)