Peripitus

Hi Peripitus. Thanks for your message. You were not mistaken, as the image I uploaded was not registered under Creative Commons copyrights. I have now obtained formal written permission by the photographer. How could I prove the image in case has sharing permission? Can I simply upload one with updated metadata? User:Ivan_Tanda (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peripitus. Thank you for helping clean up at FFD. I have a question about your close to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 13#File:Barbados Football Association.svg. Your close took care of the problem of there being two versions of the same image, but it did not address the problem of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The .png image that was kept is now being used in both Barbados national football team and Barbados Football Association. Previous FFD and NFCR discussion regarding No. 17 have almost always come to the conclusion that usage of such an image is acceptable in the federation's article but not in individual team articles. See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 65#File:FSU Seminoles logo.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Club Africain.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:USA Hockey.svg for just a few. My nomination statement included the sentence I don't think usage of either image satisfies No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI in the individual team article, so it should be removed from there regardless whether the .svg or .png is used.", but it was mixed in with the rest so perhaps easy to overlook. Anyway, I still think the usage of image is problematic in the individual team's article, but I'm not sure how to continue addressing that since the FFD discussion has been closed. Do I need to re-nominate the image at FFD to resolve this matter? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• @Marchjuly: - good point....and now removed. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you for taking another look. I also suggest adding a Template:Oldffdfull to File:Barbados FA.png to show that the file was discussed at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your closing statement at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:Surprise surprise billy talent.png, FFD venue is no longer called "Files for deletion": it is now called "Files for discussion". Back in October 2015, the functionality of Wikipedia:Non-free content review was merged into FFD, which resulted in FFD being renamed. What Marchjuly presented above in their nomination was a concern that the file they nominated, currently marked non-free, may actually not be eligible for copyright in the United States (making it free), usually due to not being original enough to meet the threshold of originality. I implore you to consider FFD's new function, and adjust your close appropriately or reopen the discussion. (This concern also applies to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:Viking Death March.jpg.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Steel1943: That seems an odd decision - I missed this due to a period of inactivity - but consensus is. NFCR was poorly trafficed, Ffd is usually even more poorly. I've rolled back my closure on these. I can't work out the point of these, and a significant number of other similar nominations. Either we have to make a judgement call and decide someone's work is PD, and we keep the image for it's current use, or we leave it marked as non-free, and keep the image for it's current use under fair-use provisions. Either way we keep the image. Simplest path to me is if we'd keep it anyway, and it's marked non-free now, move on and find something that will change things - Peripitus (Talk) 22:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peripitus. Just for reference the RfC/proposal for merging NFCR into the then Files for Deletion can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 128#Time to shut down WP:NFCR by merging it into WP:FFD?. Regarding these two particular files, I think there current usage is compliant with WP:NFCC; I just wanted to discuss whether they could possibly be converted to a free license. If they can be freely licensed, then they can be moved to Commons and their usage won't be subject to same restrictions as a non-free image. I think the reason nominations like this are sometimes made is because apparently it's the WMF's goal to reduce non-free content as much as possible. Sometimes files are uploaded as non-free out of habit, but they actually qualify for PD like File:TheBeatles68LP.jpg, File:Adolescents - Adolescents cover.jpg or File:Ebba Grön 1978 - 1982.svg. Anyway, if you feel that c:COM:PCP applies in either of these cases, then I have no problem with that and the files remaining non-free. I was just asking for clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Interesting discussion that one. @Marchjuly:. My default action in the past has been if I think it's definitely PD just boldly change the tag, if any doubt leave it alone. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I myself have only changed files to PD when they've been discussed and their is a clear consensus to do so. Otherwise, I just leave them as is as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the GA on Ayers Rock both CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) and myself are proud of the work we had done there. As for the photo in the infobox: it is a colour, performance shot of the band with the line up at the height of their popularity. The alternative is a posed, static, B&W shot of a latter day line up with few of the original members left. In any case, as you've said, its not important enough to worry about now.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Shaidar cuebiyar:. You are most welcome. It took me back - I remember listening to a copy of Beyond bought from a 2nd hand store - Peripitus (Talk) 06:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peripitus. I have a comment about your close for Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 4#File:CUA Cardinal 2008.png. My understanding of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI is that we generally allow the use of mascot logos like File:CUA Cardinal 2008.png in stand-alone articles about a university's athletic department/athletic teams (i.e., the "parent" article), but not in individual team/season articles (i.e., the "child" articles). See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 5#File:UNLV Rebels logo.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 6#File:CSU07athleticslogo.PNG for two recently closed FFD discussions about similar logos. I understand your NFCC#1 concerns, but there are pretty much freely licensed wordmark logos available for almost every major US university (for example, File:UNLV Athletics Script Logo.png and File:Cleveland State Wordmark.png for the other two FFD discussions), yet use of the mascot logo in the "parent" article is considered OK. For reference, many US university teams don't use their mascot logos on their uniform jerseys/shirts, but they do sometimes use them on helments or as a sleeve patch or stuff like that, so its not really surprising that the photo you linked to of the CSUs women's soccer team does not show the logo. If, however, you look at some photos of the men's (American) football team, you see the logo on the player's helmets. Administrators do have a bit of discretion when it comes to closes, but I thought I'd just point out that yours is a little different from what's been done lately by other admins. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• @Marchjuly:. I can see that they sometimes use the graphic, sometimes use the wordmark, and sometimes neither. I can't see any compelling reason either in the image's rationale or in the debate, as to why we should use this non-free image rather than the free wordmark. Perhaps other sports teams always use the logo. When the rationale states
  

The image is used to identify the organization The Catholic University of America, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

Then one image they use sometimes is clearly as good as the other that they use at other times. As to why other debates have been closed differently, sometimes I'm a bit more taken with the word free the site's motto than other admins, other times less - Peripitus (Talk) 05:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Understand. Thanks for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peripitus. You closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Sheffield FC.svg as a "keep" for Sheffield F.C. only. You then removed the file from Sheffield F.C. Ladies, etc. and also removed the non-free use rationales for those articles from the file's page. The file has been re-added a couple of times to "Sheffied F.C. Ladies" article (along with a non-free use rationale for such usage) since then by SevcoFraudsters, who seems to disagree with the FFD close. Is there a way for an editor to re-open a previously closed FFD discussion which did not involve the deletion of a file, but rather only its removal from certain articles? Would WP:DCL#Challenging other closures apply in this case? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• (talk page stalker) @Marchjuly: In my opinion, the edit you performed to restore the removal of the file was most appropriate in action and the edit notice you posted. If they are adamant about not agreeing with the consensus, I'd refer them to WP:DRV. (However, the result of Peripitus' close will probably be WP:SNOW endorsed.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Steel1943: Posted on User talk:SevcoFraudsters#File:Sheffield FC.svg advising them of this thread and asking them to discuss the close with Peripitus. Their response was to re-add the file and rationale again, and state they continue to do the same in the future. I asked them once again to reconsider and discuss their concerns with Peripitus. Although, I think brightline can be claimed here and the edits reverted and that this could even possibly be brought to WP:AN3, I, at least, will wait a bit to give Peripitus the opportunity to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Marchjuly: @Steel1943: - I've left a note on their talk page to come here and talk, though I've left all relevant pages on my watchlist to see. Edit warring is such a bore. Hopefully this can be resolved with discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 11:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's fine with me. I have no objection to any further discussion of this. For reference, there's was no "sexism" on my part at all since there have been similar NFCR/FFD discussions where files have been removed from both men's women's articles for similar reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Peripitus and Steel1943: There was something about the wording of this reply which reminded me of this post in a similar discussion made by Målfarlig!. There is also some similarity to the way personal attacks were used to refer other editors as having mental/psycological disorders by these two editors [1] [2] [3] as well as the use of the word "spastic" in edit sums [4] [5]. Målfarlig! hasn't edited since they were blocked by Swarm here for edit warring and personal attacks, and SevcoFraudsters was created a few days later. I guess WP:CLEANSTART could try to be argued if these editors are really the same person, except SevcoFraudster was created while there was an active block on Målfarlig! and both accounts are heavily involved in editing (women's) soccer (football) articles. Any opinions on whether this is a case of WP:MULTIPLE? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Marchjuly: - you are probably correct, similar language and cheery disposition, similar edit warring, similar geography/interests. I'm minded to let it lie - either they don't repeat the warring that I can see in September/January and the good work they are doing continues, or they do. I'm hopeful of the former but not massively. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Understand. Anyway, it's out there now so and maybe something only really needs to be done if the Målfarlig! resumes editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

IP 90.213.63.36 making similar reverts. Possible WP:Duck? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi again Peripitus. I think Special:Contributions/Sevcoteehee and Special:Contributions/Rangers died, Sevco lied might also be the same editor based upon their similar user names, similar genre of articles being edited and for the aforementioned "similar language and cherry disposition"[6]. FWIW, Sevco Scotland appears to be the former name of the company that owns the Rangers F.C. football team, so these could be just disgruntled fans. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Marchjuly: - perhaps for one but no the other. Sevcoteehee has been on Commons since 2014 and I think is someone else. Rangers died, Sevco lied appears to certainly be a sockpuppet account. Not my area of expertise so perhaps Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks for checking. I think you're right that an SPI may be a the best way to go with something like this, especially since "Rangers died, Sevco lied" makes this edit to add a category and the very next edit to the same article is made a couple minutes later by "SevcoFraudsters" to add the relevant content to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not sure about Sevcoteehee anymore after this edit because of the similarities to this edit by "Rangers died, Sevco lied". Sevcoteehee has never edited at FFD before and have never edited any cricket-related article. It could be pure coincidence of course, but seems a little suspicious. Anyway, I'm going to start working on a SPI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

First of all sorry for bringing all of this drama to your doorstep. I appreciate your patience and suggestions. Anyway, per your suggestion and after some serious edit warring by Sevcoteehee, I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Målfarlig! which was later changed to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha by an admin/checkuser. It appears there were more accounts involved than originally believed. Now the question is what to do with the edits made by these accounts, particularly the ones made to FFD discussions. Can these be reverted, struck or marked to show they were made by a sock? -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Periputus. I pinged you in User talk:Codename Lisa#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 10#File:FESFUT logo.svg about an apparent misunderstanding about the closing of an FFD discussion. Any clarification you may provide would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to let you know that the discussion was reopened by another admin so any problems with the close seem to have been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Joe.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Joe.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peripitus. Just in case you aren't aware, there's been a proposal made to merge PUF into FFD at WP:VPR#Close down Possibly Unfree Files. Since you are one of the admins who regularly helps out at FFD, I thought you might be able to provide relevant comments to the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chudleigh, Tasmania you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article Chudleigh, Tasmania you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Chudleigh, Tasmania for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peripitus. I noticed that you had prior contact with this user regarding their uploads. They've been uploading several more suspicious uploads lately. In January I took File:MbangOndoGabon.jpg.jpg to WP:PUF, and the user tagged it for G7 deletion. Yesterday, I tagged 1 file for F9 as a blatant copyvio and I took 5 additional suspicious files to PUF. Again, they tagged all 6 for G7 deletion. Looking through their upload history, I saw dozens more suspicious files that are too low resolution and lacking Exif to be believable as self-work. Most of them honestly look like screenshots from streaming video of the soccer games. I'm tempted to take most of the rest of their uploads to PUF when I have a little more time to look at each one in detail.

My concern is that, following your interaction with the user, they continue to upload suspicious files that are probably copyvios. When challenged, they tag those images for G7 deletion, but then they continue with the suspicious uploading. I'm not sure if you wanted to involve yourself again. If my suspicions are correct and the images are copyvios being passed off as self-work, it may end up requiring admin action due to the continuation of the same conduct. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@NickW557: I am not sure. They claimed (see their talk page history) to be a sport photographer. Looking at the dates, events, places etc involved in the photographs this is plausible. Almost all images come from just a couple of stadiums and most are edited with picasa. I suspect you may be correct but, apart from the examples I found back in 2015, I have not found proof that the images are copies. No hits on Tineye or Google Image search and nothing I can find through other means, though unfortunately I cannot search in Arabic. The copyvio image you found from Twitter was clearly edited before upload here. There a bunch (look for the large images) taken with a Canon 7D Mk II that should probably be tagged as missing permission as they are attributed to a "Pratyush Mishra". I'd involve myself but my time is too limited and sporadic this year sorry. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Hi Peripitus.

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) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

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.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

The rationale for deletion was "no FOP for art in Japan " but that is not true according to the section titled 第四十六条, which states that copyrighted works are free to use when they are set in places that can always easily be seen (美術の著作物でその原作品が前条第二項に規定する屋外の場所に恒常的に設置されているもの又は建築の著作物は、次に掲げる場合を除き、いずれの方法によるかを問わず、利用することができる), so Japan does have freedom of panorama. I question where you are getting your source for saying there is no FOP in Japan because that is not true, and suggest considering undoing that deletion as well.Tosiaki! (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• @Tosiaki!:. That section of the law does not refer to photographs of the sculpture being free of copyright, but rather makes a finer legal distinction that the owner of the sculpture is allowed to display it (I'm reading the english translation here). I am relying on the interpretation used on commons (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan). see particularly the statement that photos of such artwork can only be used for "non-commercial purposes" which makes them non-free for Wikipedia purposes. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Graeme Bartlett disagrees with the closure of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 24#File:Downtown by Petula Clark UK vinyl A-side.jpg. Therefore, I wonder whether you can relist it at another date. --George Ho (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• @George Ho: - I've asked Graeme what he meant by the comment. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Seems that he still disagrees with the status. May I take this to DRV, or may you undelete some revisions (not the EP one)? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC) ...thanks friendly bot....just been on a sabatical for a while ! Peripitus (Talk) 10:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin 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 rejoin 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 00:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin 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 rejoin 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 00:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply