Important: I love getting mail, so please don't hesitate to . Questions, comments, criticisms, anything is welcome! Even just a few jokes to spruce things up a little would be appreciated. Thanks!

Archives
December 2005 – June 2006 July 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – May 2007 May 2007 – January 2008 January 2008 – June 2008 June 2008 – November 2008

Doing those reverts was a gutsy thing to do. Kol HaKovod. Phil Burnstein (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi - thanks for the message about my "zman tzeiruf" page and others. I didn't expect the pages to last - it was just an experiment in seeing if iyun gemara could be organized well enough for something like wikipedia. Give the yeshiva world say, 15 years, and no doubt wikiTorah will be thriving. Please god let YU start it soon!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentaura (talk • contribs)

As his nominator, I want to thank you for your additional question on Dravecky (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s successful RfA. Such questions help reviewers better understand the candidate. I look forward to your questions in future RfAs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Jon!

Thank you very much for the information. Nice to know a nice administrator such as you.

In the name of Wikipedia!

Sayonara! See you again!

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 18:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, Hi, I would like to ask the grounds upon which you deleted my page. I would like to ask for it to be reinstated. I have no intention of using Wikipedia as a resume, but I do work in high profile positions, and am published frequently, and would therefore think myself eligable for a mention that can be developed by others as they choose to add to my biography and archive. How and when can you rectify this situation?

Chanukah Sameach

Jonny Jonnycline (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon, please contribute to the discussion I just started at Category talk:Ancient Israel and Judah. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon513, I recently created a new, referenced article for the upcoming Shahrukh Khan film, My Name is Khan which is now in production. In editing the article, a notice came up that you had deleted this article in the past due to a discussion a year ago which voted for deletion. I read the discussion and it seems that at the time it made sense to delete since there was not a great deal of information on the project. However, consensus also seemed to indicate that when production begins an article should be made. My article reflects a number of future articles that I've made for the Wikipedia and was made under Wikipedia:Assume good faith. However, when I'm editing the article, the deletion notice still comes up. I am perplexed by this for as I said, current articles indicate that production has clearly started (you can also check on Google News to see that this is so). I wonder if you could clarify this for me. Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, this is always an issue with future film articles. I've left a note on the article talk page - take a look and let me know if I need to say anything else. My major concern was a little different however - when I first began editing My Name is Khan, this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=My_Name_is_Khan

would appear in place of my edits and I could not tell if the system was set up to make it impossible to recreate the article. I wanted to alert you to this in case there was something you needed to do to allow the article to be recreated. This page is no longer appearing, but I think you were right to suggest that I leave a note on the talk page. Thanks for your help and let me know if I need to do anything else, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Standforder/Criticism of the Talmud, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Standforder/Criticism of the Talmud and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Standforder/Criticism of the Talmud during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did you make that xionist userbox? it's great and i'm stealing it!! shirulashem (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrukh khan I LOVE YOU VERY VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.188.142.24 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon513, we have a problem on wikipedia-nl and your name came up since a checkuser performed today showed you created a sockpuppet recently which was used in a weird way for possible article manipulation with us. I hope you can visit your dutch talk page since this only concerns wikipedia-nl and enlighten us about the matter and explain more. Perhaps this is something harmless but it is really confusing for us. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC) admin on wiki-nl[reply]

In case you missed it: your dutch adventure is still confusing folks: [1]. --VanBurenen (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved, new user helped along. MoiraMoira (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon513, it's now been over half a year since my previous request for the mop, and reviewing that RfA reveals that you were one of my opposers last time round. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my current status in the Wikipedia community, and if you believe I would be ready to run for adminship again in future? Please respond wherever you feel it is most appropriate. Kind regards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://xkcd.com/547/

Maybe this can go on the page about simple english wikipedia under "in culture" or something

I am trying to post the Biography of a collegue on Wikipedia. I posted it on my talk, but am lost on where I should really post this type of Bio. ANY help is appreciated. Net2win —Preceding unsigned comment added by Net2win (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort to make the parshah pages more printable. Switching to the Bibleverse format is a splendid thing; I wish I had time to help your efforts along. You model would also imply that I should not link to the Mishnah text anymore. I suppose you have to weigh the value of a clean printable page against the ability to link to a Mishnah text and do further reading there online. I'm not sure that the answer is clearly in favor of the paper version over the online version. If only there were a Mishnahverse equivalent to the Bibleverse format. Thanks for your good wishes and good work. All the best. -- Dauster (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your further note. I'll follow your advice. All the best -- Dauster (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you blocked Zenon2009. I wonder how useful such blocks are. He/she could long since have gotten himself another account or he/she could edit articles as an IP number. Nevertheless, I agree that he/she made too many "joke" edits, as can be seen on his/her talk page. --Maxl (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, was able to get a page created. It's flagged in five different directions. Can you help with the NPOV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puah_institute

/YS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe407 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Jon. Joe407 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you please help me with a submission?

Famrecordsmusic (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, David Samson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Samson. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Broccoli (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, Offer thoughts please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yaakov_Shwekey#Mostly_Music_Links Joe407 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, thanks for the notice. We live, we learn. Done. BTW, I took your suggestion and created Religious response to ART.Joe407 (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon, Given you penchant to drop in, do a hit and run, and run off, I thought I'd give you something to hit and run. Neuberger,Roy S.(Salant) is one of two articles of questionable notability and more references than you can shake a stick at. Maybe take a look and weigh in on the proposed merge or if you'd like on the notability. If you are so inclined. And the Buffalo have not yet eaten you. Joe407 (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a suggestion regarding how to "unBlacklist" babynology.com, which was used here in Wikipedia in 2007. The entry here is from 2008. Dad7 (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That site was added to the wikipedia blacklist on June 3, 2008 by User:A. B. diff. This was in response to spamming by Live2Support Inc diff. As the site lack clear encyclopedic value, I would support a continuation of the ban. However if you want to request that the site be unblocked, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Blocked external links#Request unblocking of a link or website. Jon513 (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laila tov!

What can be done about a redirect that is incorrectly redirected? "Mulligans" is a film, but is recirected to "mulligan" the do-over. What can be doen in these cases?

23:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsaindon (talk • contribs)

"Unwashed masses try to explain Kumzitz to WP editors!"

. Joe407 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot if I replied on the article talk page since your reply on mine. Maybe I had just said since the Rastafarian view is there the modern Essene one should be. I do not completely know why Jewish Orthodox would say only Pharisees are accurate. I had thought at least Sadducces would be too, though I know little about these schools. However I dispute such use of the term 'Orthodox.' Christian Orthodoxy considers Catholicism to be sufficiently Orthodox in its viewpoints about Christianity (but not the Pope,) and I suspect even the tens of Orthodox churches have some varying viewpoints, so why would any mere one or two Jewish schools of thought be considered all of 'Orthodox?' Using the term like that is sort of inflammatory, especially since there is apparently no pre-mediaeval copy of the Torah and so the objections of the Essenes--or those attributed to them (but probably in history I have not read in-depth)--are just as valid about the Torah as other groups, because there is no (dis)proof for any one view. Finally, if there is some Heterodox view it should be represented. Maybe the Rasta addition was unfair and there should not be a modern Essene addition unless it is supported. However, if I find a historical view I would probably add it even if it is Heterodox. I still think the article should not be so conservative, but I guess that is up to people who know more about it. What I wrote was based on a researcher that has a Phd Divinity, but he is not a very formal writer and did not cite much in what I have read, though he says he sticks to historical sources, and the only sources I have read from him are historical (besides a few others with unprovable viewpoints that he describes so and does not really say much else about or push their point.) Maybe one day I will get some more info but for now I guess I will not be editing the article.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solarboiler.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Solarboiler.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Solarboiler.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your category help at Animal rights and the Holocaust. In case you haven't seen it yet, there are follow-up questions there. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you proposed a set of rules for the Wikipedia:Trading card game, this is a notification that a poll has been started to help choose the rules here. Feel free to comment, etc. Thanks, ♠TomasBat 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're wrapping up the democratic rules approval process. Please reveiw Wikipedia:Trading card game/Action plan/Phase 1:Rules/Rules approval‎ and review the ruleset. If no changes are made to it within 7 days, then we will proceed next week with the card nomination and approval process.

If you are no longer interested in helping out with the project, please remove your name from the participants list.

Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'd like to show our appreciation for those who have so far contributed significantly by offering the MVP's of the design process the opportunity to select one nonfeatured article to appear in the trading card game. Your name is on our list of MVP's. Please submit your proposal here. See you there! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the standard term today now for bringing muslim slaughter and jewish slaughter under one term is Religious Slaughter. Try searching for these terms and Religious slaughter gives close to three million hits - ritual slaughter less. Also the EU project DIALREL (Dialogue on Religious Slaughter) uses one of these terms and not the other. Here are the participating Consortium [2] and here is their Glossary: [3]. Please note, the term Ritual Slaughter does not appear. Perhaps because there is no ritual involved (an idea antisemites wanted to encourage).

The Yiddish for Shechita / Shehitah is shekhtn. This gave rise to the German word Schächten - and the Swedish word skäktning. Somewhere in between, there is a word in German Shächtung.

Surely, if the current terminology is to be used by people in the business, Religious Slaughter ought to be the standard term. I have one terminological discussion in Swedish, but so far nothing in English. The Swedish discussion very much wants to lose the term Ritual Slaughter as it so happens that it is too similar to Ritual Murder (in English, called Blood Libel. It just so happens that there was a Ritual Murder accusation at the start of the campaigns against Jewish slaughter, where in Hungary, a Jewish slaughterer (shohet/shochet) was tortured in order to admit a murder of a five-year-old girl. But her body was found in the river and her throat was not cut. The Cause celèbre was used in the Swiss campaign to ban Jewish slaughtering. RPSM (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jon513,

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) 23:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jon513. You have new messages at Talk:Walkie-talkie.
Message added 08:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you like to offer an opinion? Joe407 (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just checking in as to the content for [[4]] that you deleted in March 2008. If content was regarding a band led by Jon Poole, please can you provide reasons for deletion as otherwise I would like to resurrect it. If it was other content, I will go ahead anyyway as intended edit bears no relation. Thanks Gallifreyseven (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ross

The content was about something to do with Jon Poole, but it was unclear what. It was speedy delete-able for lacking context ("God Damn Whores is the branchild of British musician Jon Poole..." what is it? Almost anything can be a "brainchild"), and because the author blanked the page which I understood to mean that he wanted it to be deleted. If you want to recreated it I have no problem with it. Jon513 (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoi m8 I can't verify if there is any truth to the bio you deleted as I have not read it. Nor can I verify if the bio is really the proper voice actor in question. A bio link for a Randy Pearlstein was deleted in 2008 while he has been listed as the voice actor for a character in the 2010 TV show Ugly Americans. If I can verify this would you have objections to it being revived? Thank you for your valuable time.

FreyGrimrod (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because it is did not make a claim of notability, and appeared to me to be a vanity or joke article. the content was:

Randy Pearlstein is an American Actor and Screenplay Writer. He is one Cool Dude. He has also appeared in the Chappelles show short "Dudes Night Out".

If he is really a notable actor and not just a "Cool Dude" I have no problem with a sourced article being created about him. Jon513 (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I am new to wiki so i hope I am doing this correctly. i read a wiki article about Isaac balsam's dairy farm and would like some additional info if you have it. The article stated that Isaac was one of ten children. Do you know the names of his siblings? His Father Jacob's siblings? Any help with this info or with helping me find the wiki author who has this info would be greatly appreciated.

Please email me at fountain46@yahoo.com

Thank you

47.23.107.20 (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC) David[reply]

Hello,

I'm Leeds United FC fan, a member of WikiProject Rugby league. I noticed you recently deleted a page on the Deletion log, and as you seem to be involved in deletion of articles, I would appreciate it if you could determine whether a page is notable for creation. I would be interested in creating a page for the 2015–16 Elite One Championship.

The league appears to be professional and semi-professional. La Depeche (regional newspaper) (in 2011) reported Elite One Championship budgets on this page: La Depeche page though I'm still not fully certain the clubs are professional/semi-professional (and the budgets could changed since). For the 2015–16 season, L'Équipe provides a league table here and the most recent results as of writing this here. La Depeche (regional newspaper) has a page here for news on Rugby league in general (includes Catalans Dragons who play in the Super League instead) though does have Elite One Championship news too.

The French Wikipedia has a page for the 2015–16 Elite One Championship here. L'Indépendant (regional newspaper) has news on Rugby league in general (includes Catalans Dragons who play in the Super League instead) though does have Elite One Championship news too.

A judgement on whether my topic is notable enough for creation would be appreciated.

Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jon513: Time for you to resign your adminstratorship. According to your contribution log you have:

• 1 edit in 2016 (so far)
• 1 edit in 2015
• 2 edits in 2014
• 14 edits in 2013
• 25 edits in 2012
• 6 edits in 2011
• 14 edits in 2010

You haven't edited regularly in this decade for chrissakes. If you wake up and want to go back to admining fine but you'll want to run a new RfA so the community can reassure itself that your skills haven't gone rusty since, I dunno, the Bush Administration. Coming back once a year to make one edit retains your admin rights, but I'm sure that just a coincidence -- right? You wouldn't disrespect the project to the point of exploiting that technicality on purpose to retain your admin rights -- right? Herostratus (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR

By all means, get active! Consider this a wake-up call to beckon you to return to a reasonably high level of productivity (it's fun!). This'd be the best outcome, and in that case, I don't think anyone would object to your keeping your admin powers. But if you put it off another year or so it'd be too late, in my opinion. Come back! You're wanted! Herostratus (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jon513. 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. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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)[reply]

Hi Jon513.

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)[reply]

Hello, Jon513. 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)[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)

Hello, Jon513. 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)[reply]

Hello, Jon513. 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)[reply]

I meant to Thank you for your edit, not roll it back. Sorry!! SteveStrummer (talk) 22:51, 24 January 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 02:51, 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 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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 00:04, 1 August 2022 (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 00:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage 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 08:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage 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 01:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]