User talk:Metamagician3000
|
Everything to date now archived
[edit]Good to have that done! Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Ross University School of Medicine
[edit]I'm not sure if this is a canvassing violation, but I'd sure appreciate it if you could voice your opinion / kick in over at the title article. All of my relatively conservative edits to reduce the NPOV problem have been summarily reverted by an IP editor, and the WP:SPA editor who brought the request for protection seems very resistant to making any substantative changes as well.
I hate to see this kind of thing on Wikipedia. But the subject of this article is outside my usual interests, and given the determined opposition, getting this article to a point where it is not an embarrassment is likely to be a lot more work to do on my own than I really want to commit to. Having a second voice would be appreciated if the rules permit this request. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll have another look at it tomorrow. It's outside my usual interests as well, though I do know a bit about universities in a general way. Maybe I can at least make a supportive note on the article's talk page. I don't see this as canvassing in any forbidden way, especially given where the discussion started. Metamagician3000 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Xanth?
[edit]I find your username amusing. Did you derive it from Piers Anthony's Xanth books? I'm particularly interested because I suggested the term "metamagic" and its definition to him in a fan letter. (Acknowledgements, Question Quest.) --Thnidu (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, afraid not. One source was the 1985 Douglas Hofstadter book, Metamagical Themas - but more in the foreground at the time was someone else's discussion of metamagical thinking that I'd read. I think it might have been something by Robert Sapolsky, but it's quite a while ago now. I really should go back and check... Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- And a further check of my shelves finds that the relevant discussion was, indeed, by Sapolsky. It's in his book Junk Food Monkeys, also published as The Trouble with Testosterone. I just left a note on the talk page for the Sapolsky article that these seem to be two names for (different editions of) the same book. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Metamagician3000! Just a FYI, it looks like you commented with a !vote twice in this AfD, see [1] and [2]. LFaraone 22:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about that - it wasn't meant to be two !votes. I've never been sure whether we're supposed to confirm/update positions from before a case being relisted. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
2015 Azarenka page
[edit]Yes I have. You can safely delete it, but if somehow Victoria Azarenka does return to form in 2015 (something I doubt given her injury woes in 2015) then I can reinstate it. MasterMind5991 (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Talk: Cultural Marxism, deleted comments
[edit]I believe you've deleted some of my comments during your archiving of talk:Cultural Marxism. This is against Wikipedia policy, so please fix this questionable error immediately. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for letting me know. As you'll see if you look near the top of the talk page, I noted that it was possible to make a mistake and inadvertently delete something. I gave something of an apology for that in advance. I asked if someone could check that I hadn't failed to archive something. There was a lot of material, not all of it in order, and like everyone else I'm doing my best in my spare time, so it's easy to make a mistake.
- So, my apologies to you in particular. It's all in the history, though, so it's fairly easily rectified. Go ahead and copy the missing material into the relevant part of the archive by all means. Or if you need help I'll be happy to do it for you. But could you tell me the approximate date of the material to make it a bit easier? Best wishes, Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for sounding suspicious but what with the political interest in that page there's been some strange goings on. It will probably be easier if ,as you suggest, I fix it myself (as there's probably more motivation on my part to do so). Thank you for you courteous and prompt reply. Sincerely --60.241.86.130 (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- All good! Just let me know if there's anything I can do, but it sounds as if you have it under control. Metamagician3000 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for sounding suspicious but what with the political interest in that page there's been some strange goings on. It will probably be easier if ,as you suggest, I fix it myself (as there's probably more motivation on my part to do so). Thank you for you courteous and prompt reply. Sincerely --60.241.86.130 (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
29th Melbourne Meetup
[edit]Hello, you have previously indicated that you would be interested in attending Melbourne meetups. A meetup will be held on Wednesday August 12, 2015 6-8pm. Please check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 29 for details and add your name to the list if you think you can attend. --Michael Billington (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Michael. I no longer live in Melbourne, but the contact from you is appreciated. Metamagician3000 (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you help to improve this article over the years via X!'s editcount tool. I have worked on the citations over the past few months and I am nearing the end of what else I can see to do to improve it. Please consider nominating this article for Featured Article status or at least for another peer review. Thanks.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Cultural Marxism
[edit]I see you're not that active currently here, but I came across your contributions to the AFD on this, having recently found myself somewhat bemused to discover how WP deals with this phrase. What you've left up on your user page happens to tally pretty much exactly with what I've thought (and said, in the latest flare-up) about this. I'm not sure what solution there is to this that won't involve inordinate amount of discussion, a pile-on by people looking to debate modern-day US politics in great detail, and probably as unsatisfactory an outcome as last time, but the status quo seems nuts to me, for want of a better description. It doesn't tell anyone much about the origins of the concept – which surely warrants a standalone page focusing on its usage as found in most academic writing, before turning to discuss (factually, not by way of debate) its adoption as a polemical, pejorative term – and leaves the Frankfurt School page stuffed full of tangential commentary by and about some fairly marginal right-wing US figures. N-HH talk/edits 13:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, I agree. I gave up on trying to make any contribution to this on-Wiki debate as it was just too politicized and difficult (and burning up my time and energy for no gain). I did write some stuff in my own name on the Cogito blog hosted by The Conversation, if you're interested (the link will take you to Part 1 and there's a further link to Part 2), but I don't think there's much current prospect of getting Wikipedia to handle this topic well or fairly. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
[edit]
Hello, Metamagician3000. 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. 17:48, 23 September 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 Metamagician3000.
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]
Hello, Metamagician3000. 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)
Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.
Obituaries
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Merging into Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations instead of AfD
[edit]The consensus was to to merge the article in the [3]. Can you close it off please? Thank you. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 00:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm traveling at the moment, so better if you ask another admin to handle this. I take it, from a quick glance at the page, that you mean the consensus was to oppose merger. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Metamagician3000. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Melbourne Wikimeetup (June/July)
[edit]
|
Melbourne Meetup
|
 | |
Hi, I've just made a doodle poll to vote on the best date for the next Wikimeetup in Melbourne (Beer Deluxe, Fed Square). Would be great to see you there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't live in Melbourne anymore, alas, but I hope it goes well. Metamagician3000 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Date of next Melbourne meetup decided:
- When: 6-8pm, Sunday 8 July 2018
- Where: Beer DeLuxe, Flinders St
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Metamagician3000. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circular
[edit] |
Administrators must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
[edit]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)
The article Kurse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable fictional character
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kurse 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/Kurse 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. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | 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 |
The article Titanic Three has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Good article drive notice
[edit] | Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations! |
-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
[edit]A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
CM again; maybe a BCA?
[edit]Hello, Metamagician3000, I came across your posts about CM while reviewing the 2014 CM Rfc, and then read your 2-parter at The Conversation. I'm wary of kicking up any drama at the articles just now, but was just wondering if you've heard of Wikipedia's concept of a WP:Broad concept article. It's possible that the term might lend itself to that, with {{Main}} links off to various child articles. There's also an article organization called a WP:Set index article, which would have more information than a disambig page, and possibly could work here. Anyway, not ready to propose anything at this juncture, but just kind of brainstorming possibilities going forward, or maybe planting a seed, of something that follows structures that are known and familiar at Wikipedia. Perhaps something for some future overture. Cheers, (please 
mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: Thanks. I got a bit burnt out with this at the time, and with Wikipedia, and I guess we've all moved on. But that's useful to know if there's ever a good chance to discuss this issue sensibly. Metamagician3000 (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
[edit]Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. /Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
New administrator activity requirement
[edit]The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder
[edit]
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder
[edit]This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,