Pax:Vobiscum

A Barnstar for You!

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For saving Disguised Toast from deletion. Good job! CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 22:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

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 02:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152

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) Template:Z83

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Gormenghast (castle) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gormenghast (castle) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gormenghast (castle) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

User:Wikieditor19920 has asked for a deletion review of Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. 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. —Cryptic 21:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to post this. Yes, I have proposed a review of your closure, which I believe to be in error. Thanks, Cryptic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed DRV for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 9010

Good morning, may I ask as to what led you to close the above as keep? All of the keep votes are nothing other than WP:ILIKEIT. Care to elaborate, please? Did you evaluate the sourcing prior to closure? Nightfury 09:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Good morning! Among the participants in the discussion, consensus was pretty clearly keep. For me to override this, there needs to be a pretty clear case that this "local consensus" goes against a broader community consensus (since obviously a handful of people cannot overthrow our core policies). Since noone questioned your characterization that there are two or maybe three marginally reliable sources I accepted that. With the existence of two or three sources it is not obvious that the subject fails our notability standards, and so I did not find it appropriate to override the consensus in the AfD. Best/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I will take to DRV for further analysis, I appreciate your input re this, this isn't your fault but I believe the contributors may have been biased on this one. Thanks. Nightfury 11:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for reaching out so civilly! Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Southern Pacific 9010

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Southern Pacific 9010. 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. Nightfury 11:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

DRV

Deletion review for Young Conservatives of Texas

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Young Conservatives of Texas. 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. - There was clear consensus after the two relistings. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)