User talk:Ffirehorse

[Please add any comments to the bottom of this page. Thank you.]

---

Luis Echeverría Álvarez

I notice that all diacriticals in this article have been switched from the "&;" form to direct characters. What I mean is, all instances of Echeverría are now written as Echeverría. (See here.) Was this intentional, or was this a byproduct of the browser you use? Just curious, Quadell (talk) 14:23, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

San Francisco

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I reverted because the information of the two mayoral candidates both being left of center is much more important than their both being under 40. RickK`

One Day at a Time

Thanks so much for adding that plot section. I hadn't seen the show in ten years so I forgot much of the story. You can message me at my talk page anytime. Mike H 16:21, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

danke

much thanks for answering my question about election results. Thepedestrian 21:39, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Jealous

I've done some stuff on Jealous guy, but it's far from flawless. You coudn't tidy it up a bit for us could you? It'd keep them nerds off of our backs.--Crestville 23:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fay Wray

Ffirehorse, are you sure Fay Wray has actually been give a star on Canada's Walk of Fame? I was deliberately non-committal in the article because:

• I couldn't find it when I went down there to look ( I live in downtown Toronto)
• She isn't mentioned on their website.

If you know something I don't, fair enough. Dhodges 05:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) User talk:dhodges

Rare Earth (Music group)

Could you please save, other than on WP, your work-in-progress on this article. It should surely be saved here in due time, and the delay is in no sense your fault, but there is a complication that should be cleaned up with as little further change as possible, first. I'd be glad to provide details on request. TIA. --Jerzy(t) 08:12, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

The cost of your editing it immediately on WP would be a certain amt of confusion and otherwise unnecessary work later one, but nothing irreversible. If, on the other hand you finish and others pile on, meeting my original concern will become impractical. Unless your doctors have given you 24 hours to live [wink], my suggestion of coding off-line what you plan to put on WP in a day or two should work better for everyone including you, IMO. But no one (and least of all i) is going to block or ban you if you go ahead. [smile] --Jerzy(t) 00:36, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have interfered with your editing on Rare Earth (band), especially since the increased complication of the history after i noticed it pretty much rules out what i had in mind. If you're interested in what it was all about, a WP policy strongly recommends using the "move" link to change names of articles, rather than copy-and-paste as another editor did on this one.

How i saw, and how i now see, this partcular situation is in User talk:Ilyanep#Your Rare Earth cut-and-paste, but is probably more than you want to know.

Thanks again. --Jerzy(t) 23:14, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

adminship

Hello, Ffirehorse,

Thank you for your vote at WP:RfA.
I'll treat the "key to the mop closet" well. :-)

-- PFHLai 07:05, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for supporting me at the requests for adminship page. To my dismay, I found that a mistake in the amount of contributions I have. Rather than 1,906, I actually have 1,492. If you want to adjust your vote, that's (of course) completely alright with me, and you have my appreciation either way! -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Jeffersons

Hi Ffirehorse! Please see Talk:The Jeffersons Thanks! Quill 00:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I tossed this around myself. It seemed to me that without it, the implication was that all sitcoms were American. Then again, since it's a disambig page, it didn't sit all that well with me. I've asked for opinions; I may just go ahead and change it back. Don't worry about being picky, that's exactly the sort of thing I would fuss over too! Quill 01:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Ffirehorse

You've been a member for awhile now, and I'd like to know if you'd be willing to accept an adminship nomination. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about this: Keep making contributions to the Wiki like you've been doing, and in early or mid-October, I'll nominate you. Sound good? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I appreciated it very much. If you would like to talk sometime, please drop me a note on my talk page or email me. Mike H 23:40, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for your support of my adminship. –Andre (talk) 17:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ago Gratias

Thanks for your vote on my nomination for administrator. Since there is great opposition, I've asked for it to be withdrawn. I've posted an explanation of frequent edits on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

Ffirehorse - many thanks for supporting my adminship! Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 05:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade

See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 09:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Political bias:

• From Sam's own user page: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
• Removes references to groups such as the KKK as "right-wing" [1]
• Attempts to sugarcoat racist views [2]
• The claim the Geli Raubal was Hitler's mistress is just that, a claim [3].
• Wants Hitler labeled as a socialist on the communism page (see Talk:Communism)
• Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in nazism article:
  • User_talk:Andries#Nazism.2FChina
  • Talk:Nazism#China
• From Talk:Socialism:
  • "I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." (Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
• Called another editor a "fascist" (Talk:Socialism#protection). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
  • "Enforcing american spelling is a sign of nationalism, and would therefore seem to suggest your not an anarchist? Or perhaps your a "anarcho-nationalist"? ;p" (Sam Spade 08:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC), User_talk:Spleeman#Nationalism)
  • "Censorship isn't very anarchist" (Sam Spade 23:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC), Talk:Anarchism/Archive10#deleting_links)
• More on belief in non-racial eugenics: Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
  • Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
• Guess what everybody!!! "The attempt to paint them [the Nazis] as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud." (Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Nazism) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.
• Hmm. For some reason, Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking [4].

RfA

Now I've got some homework to do. Thank you for your supportive RfA vote and consideration. Fire Star 13:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship

Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:00, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Hey, thanks for the kind words and vote of support for Admin! I appreciate it :-) Ta bu shi da yu 06:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Would you like me to nominate you now? We discussed this a month ago and you agreed to consider being nominated at this time. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:36, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

You're an admin!

I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Congratulation, Ffirehorse! Welcome to the top sekrit sysop kabal. 22:51, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome, and congratulations! Andre (talk) 23:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm sure you'll make a great admin. Jayjg 00:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• You're welcome from me, too. CONGRATS!! - Lucky 6.9 02:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adminship Election

Salve, Ffirehorse! Back in September I was a candidate for adminship that I withdrew. Since then, I've been working away and have now decided to try again, nominating myself. Since you supported me then, I'd appreciate your vote on the new candidacy at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 18:56, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Salve, Ffirehorse!
  I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support in my successful RFA candidacy. It was very gratifying to see the kind remarks posted in the debate. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:27, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Maybe Katie

Salve, Ffirehorse!
We haven't communicated in a while and I hope this message find you well. Lately I've not fared well with my FAC nominees, some failing to win even one support vote. I wonder if you would look at Katie Holmes and its nominationhere and offer your comments. PedanticallySpeaking 15:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

research

With regard to your research question on the mailing list, you should ask your supervisor at the School of Information whether what you intend qualifies as human research, and if so, whether you need to obtain Institutional Review Board clearance or waiver prior to conducting it. If you intend only on taking public data, IRB clearance will be no obstacle: if you intend interacting with human subjects, prior IRB clearance may be indispensible. (Your concern really should be with your institution and not with Wikipedia. FWIW, prior research has been done by IBM utilizing data only). Conducting research at an institution without obtaining prior IRB clearance can lead to some serious problems for that institution's funding. - Nunh-huh 04:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. To clarify, my project is not “research” in the sense of a publishable or intended-for-publishing paper or a project that is creating new knowledge in a field. What it essentially is amounts to a case study of an online community for a course on the design and social structures of online communities. The paper won't go outside the boundaries of the term or the seminar itself.

The University of Michigan’s IRB does not view such projects as falling within the scope of requiring human subject review. The seminar has spent a lot of time going over the requirements for IRB, and those in the course who are writing papers that may be turned into scholarly papers, theses, or dissertations will have to get IRB approval. Similarly, those who are intending to solicit or collect systematic data, conduct interviews or surveys, or perform other activities commonly linked with research that is intended to gather data for the purposes of increasing “generalizable knowledge,” will also need IRB approval.

I do not intend to (1) conduct interviews, (2) gather systematic or quantitative data, (3) ask questions of or observe individual editors, or (4) identify Wikipedia editors or users by username in my report. I do intend to write a report based on the material we’ve been learning in the seminar, on a literature review, and on my own observations about how Wikipedians interact as a community, how conflict is resolved, how norms are established, what social dynamics take place, and how a sense of communal identity is created, built, and sustained. One of the reasons I'm taking this course is that I am avidly interested in how and why Wikipedia works (because, in my view, it does "work"). I want to be able to explain (to myself, to the seminar) why that is so, in a rigorous manner.

The report will be 20-30 pages at the end, and I’ll be glad to share my conclusions. I’ll also be glad to answer any questions or address any concerns, either via e-mail or via posts here on my talkpage. ffirehorse 05:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that UoM's IRB is so accommodating; not all institutions are (and I'm not sure why the venue of publication makes a difference to them, other than the likelihood of review by those who review IRB boards<g>). I just wanted to be sure you'd checked it out beforehand, as afterwards can ruin a career. - Nunh-huh 05:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Might take a look

Hello. Just wondering if you would mind taking a look at a collaborative effort I'm trying to start. Any feedback or ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! DxNate 12:25, 14 Apr 2024 User-Talk-Contribs

Proposed deletion of Bailter Space

The article Bailter Space has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable no third party sourcing

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ffirehorse! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,190 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Sven Birkerts - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Ffirehorse,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Ffirehorse. 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. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

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) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Ffirehorse.

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!

Hello, Ffirehorse. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ffirehorse. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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 21:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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 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, 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 00:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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 have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, 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 00:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ffirehorse. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ffirehorse. 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)