User talk:Finlay McWalter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives[edit]

Leave new messages at the bottom please[edit]

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Finlay McWalter. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your rescuing of Collision (TV series) from getting messed up. -- AI RPer (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


Sentence of the week[edit]

Hi Finlay, for this "so the possibility of TX being in play, perhaps in 8 years, is not the psephological nebbishness it probably is today. " - you get my incredibly irregularly awarded sentence of the week commendation! Thanks for the refs and comment, you gave me chuckle (and hope for my depressing current state of residence). Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please revoke talk page access[edit]

For Baul Broe UTTP VGCP. User made an attack unblock request. Thanks! Linguist If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 23:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Meh, let him rant. In any event, it's rarely appropriate for the blocking admin to also be the one to revoke access. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 23:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk page access has now been revoked. Linguist If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 23:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

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[edit]

Hi Finlay McWalter.

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![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Finlay McWalter. 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![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Finlay McWalter. 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)

Pizzagate[edit]

I presume you didn't want to add that back to the article. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)?

What makes you think that? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
On first look I was linking it to the recent conspiracy theory furor but having just been reverted myself I now know that this is an actual thing that doesn't involve maniacs with shotguns. The world is an odd place. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
If it resurfaces, we can put an edit notice on that article (and maybe some comment text in that section) directly people to Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). But the overspill that the football article saw (which seems to have been due to one person, thwarted in their attempts to make/edit the conspiracy article) seems to have abated. If the conspiracy article ends up being protected we might see further overspill, but absent that the football article is probably okay. I'd wager that, in a week or two, the locus of internet crazy will have moved to some other nonsense. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)