User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2019/5

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Firearms deletion

Hi. Kind of a strange question for you: if I think your AE close was correct, but the underlying deletion was incorrect, what are the avenues for appeal (if any), given that it's already been to DRV, plus Arbcom's recent motion... if you know? Thanks! Leviv ich 05:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:AC/DS#sanctions.modify. AN and ARCA are still open (the previous ARCA does not count as an appeal). T. Canens (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Script tweak?

Hi Tim, hope you're doing well. Some of the people involved with the small wiki monitoring team and xwiki stuff were bugging me about this earlier: the SPI helper script block log wikilink doesn't work well with m:Special:CentralAuth, which makes it difficult for them to click through to an SPI from meta. I think we addressed this in {{checkuser}} a while ago, and I was wondering if it would be possible to change the wikilink in the SPI helper script to match the template SPI block (i.e. have the block log reference w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramesh kumar 07 instead of just Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramesh kumar 07.) Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordWise

Plesae review your closure action on WordWise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordWise. Frankly unless changed it is difficult to see why this should not be brought to WP:DRV. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to. T. Canens (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou for your quick response. I am currently on the road but will anticipate taking this to DRV within 24 hours. I am currently VERY ANNOYED at the deletion of my good faith work and need to calm. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Karikku

There is a Draft:Karikku. When you closed the deletion review and deleted Karikku, was it your conclusion that the draft should be retained or that the draft should be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The DRV did not express any opinion on the draft, and we don't usually delete them just because the article was deleted for notability reasons. Is there anything special about this one? T. Canens (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for interjecting but this page is currently on my watchlist and I participated in said discussion. Because the draft was under the stewardship of user X which seemingly was copied by Y and placed in mainspace the deletion of the mainspace copy should have no effect on the draft under the stewardship of X. Now whether there was meatpuppetry between X and Y is a different question by we probably have to AGF there wasn't. So my view would be retain the draft. I've just added both draft and main article to my watchlist though. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordWise

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordWise. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War Joy Tour

Hi there, you closed this AfD as redirect...to itself. I assume you meant either the album or the band? Thanks, ansh666 02:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No, of course I meant to create a self-redirect :P Fixed, thanks! T. Canens (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Karikku

Hi mate, I have created an article on the Indian web channel, Karikku, an article which you had deleted earlier. Before creating the article, I had a look at the restored draft (which has since become redundant) and have tried to establish the notability of the subject in a better way. Thought I should let you know. Cheers! --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shuchir Suri

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shuchir Suri. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Radadiyageet (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• I happen still to have this page on my watchlist. After hunting around for this I spotted Radadiyageet's good faith but invalid attempt to raise the DRV that was cleared out by a bot. After reviewing Radadiyageet's contributions and I have elected to correct the attempt to raise the DRV. If Radadiyageet has decided not to wish to continue with the DRV that should be indicated on the DRV which is here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 22. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

List of Star Trek animals

List of Star Trek animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I happened to come across this today, I'm not sure why. You might see I briefly undeleted it to check the pageviews tool (which doesn't work on deleted pages) and found that the page has about 1,000 views in the 30 days before it was nominated for deletion, or an average of about 30-40 "reads" per day, which is a fairly active article. I'd like to put a discussion somewhere about what we could do with this since the article is deleted, to get the few-dozen-a-day readers coming to look at this topic to something that would be useful, not really a deletion review but more like a merge discussion or RfC or something. If I were to do that I would like to undelete the page for the discussion. Does that seem reasonable to you? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. T. Canens (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note

Message for you [1] -Roberthall7 (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)