User talk:Richwales/Archives/2019-05

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Missed one
Hello R. Thanks for your cleanup on the article. The BLP problem still shows in this edit summary though the edit itself is okay. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Fixed now. Thanks for catching this.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the followup. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:47, 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)

As the protection expired
Hello RW. You may remember the BLP roblems on the article a couple weeks ago. After your protection expired they resumed. I can file a new WP:RFPP but I thought I'd make you aware of this first. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The semi-protection I added to the Jim Cummings article is, in fact, still in effect. However, the latest problem edit was done by a user who, although relatively new, has just barely passed the criteria for autoconfirmation.  I'll look into the issue further.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * D'oh. Apologies for missing the protection info. I don't know whether the post is still up for r/d. Has the fact that the story has been in the news for several days changed the situation? MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've revdel'ed the offending edit. Full suppression (oversighting) feels like overkill to me at the moment, though I might change my mind and won't put up a fuss if someone else decides to suppress.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Enjoy the rest of your weekend :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)