|This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to NuclearWarfare.|
- 1 Request for information
- 2 Extended confirmed protection
- 3 Category:Billy Bush has been nominated for discussion
- 4 Topic ban and copyvio
- 5 Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
- 6 A new user right for New Page Patrollers
- 7 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 8 Question about user you previously sanctioned
Request for information
OK. I would like to formulate an appeal, and I would like to know the grounds of the decision, and whether ArbCom was involved. I will cite the grounds in my appeal. Thanks for your help. SashiRolls (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Appeal to 6 month topic ban
Having had no response to my request for information concerning the 6-month topic ban that you applied to me against the opinion of the two other administrators who weighed in on the original case, I have decided to formally appeal your decision. I will add a link once the appeal is filed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. SashiRolls (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here is a direct link for your convenience. Again, I thank you for your time. SashiRolls (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see that you have filed your request. The grounds of my decision were based on my statement in the original arbitration enforcement request. The Arbitration Committee was not involved. NW (Talk) 12:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Category:Billy Bush has been nominated for discussion
Category:Billy Bush, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Topic ban and copyvio
Leaving a message here in the interest of transparency, and to avoid any possible future content disputes that may attempt to masquerade as topic ban enforcement.
user:SashiRolls violated their topic ban from Jill Stein, instituted by yourself on behalf of ArbCom, but did so to bring attention to a fairly blatant WP:COPYVIO which has since been addressed. For what it's worth, I think this was a good catch, and should not be counted against the user. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the copyright violation introduced by Snooganssnoogans (who oddly has still (!?) never been topic banned despite all the evidence during that case and since), Timothyjosephwood.SashiRolls (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know Timothyjosephwood. I agree with your assessment and do not feel the need to proceed further. NW (Talk) 21:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your not disciplining me (again) for working to defend Wikipedia from POV editing, this time by pointing out a clear copyright violation from the same person. Your decision not to use DS to prevent further misbehavior from the copyright violator is less comprehensible to me. Further evidence that the user just doesn't get it here. This flouting of Wikipedia principles (including WP:5P1, WP:5P2, WP:5P3 & WP:5P4) should stop. SashiRolls (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- NW, after all these years your talk page has remained on my watch list, not that I ever check it but I have a terrible streak of sentimentality that sometimes forces me to do things that don't make a lot of sense. Through these ten years here I have clung to you (and MastCell) as the Wikipedia ideal that I look up to and admire. But a few days ago your page connected to the Jill Stein article came up and just a few days prior I had read her article -- and was sorta horrified to find such a biased WP article. I made a few attempts to edit; my attempts were quickly reverted and, aware as I am about WP's stance on GMs and altmed, I knew better than to continue. That you have read her article and were not be concerned about the bias surprises me. OK, I could go on but after all these years I have learned to not waste my breath. Gandydancer (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
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) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
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!
Question about user you previously sanctioned
After you sanctioned a user on a similar topic  -- this edit  appears to directly violate WP:SYNTH (sources don't mention the topic of the article itself at all). And edit-wars to add it back in, again, at . After comments from Neutrality , user unfortunately seems refusing to get it . Keeping in mind the prior sanction you gave the user on that related topic -- would some further action be appropriate here from an admin? Sagecandor (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)