HighInBC

Tokens from other editors:

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Talk page archives - Archive index

• Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
• Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.
• Note: I was once known as Chillum, so perhaps you already know me. HighInBC 20:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello there,

Since i have been blocked with adding my own credits (I think by you) , i was wondering if you could update my page with my new Paramount plus series"1923" in which I play Father Renaud and other credits which you can find on Imdb and also is it possible to change the photo that was posted by a fan with a more flattering and recent photo of me. The one that is posted is from 10 years ago.

Thank you

I was wondering when I can have access to my own page to correct the errors made by the people administering my page. I still struggle to understand how Wikipedia can do this. I would be willing to work with an administrator in tandem to give them the right info.

Thank you

Best

Sebastian Roché Avoman (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi HighInBC! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Since I screwed up the ping

It's not an issue directly concerning to you, but since I mentioned your recent discussion with Neutralhomer at WP:AN, I figure I should notify you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_of_Neutralhomer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I am frustrated with this user. I tried to help them and they took an adversarial position with me. I may comment on the discussion, but I will not be supporting an unblock at this time. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

In the course of catching up with what I've missed the last day or so, I re-read his talk page and your discussion with him, and realized I stepped on your toes a little, bringing this to AN/ANI after you said you'd consider doing so. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh not at all. I did decline to do so after he got impatient, but I mentioned that perhaps another admin would like to. You can give someone advice, but you can't stop them from making a mistake. I knew their request would end badly if made this early, but sometimes people just have to see with their own eyes. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If he sticks to not evading his block. I'll support his unblock in April 2022, even though he did (months ago) suggest that I was a bigot or racist, because I questioned another editor's competency. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

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)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that the IP address will still be visible to vandal fighters I think session based makes the most sense.

However has a hybrid approach been considered? If someone shows up with no cookie using an IP than has been used in the last week just append to it. So User:Anon3406 becomes User:Anon3406-2 or something similar. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

150.101.157.18

On 10 December, you wrote at User talk:150.101.157.18 that you had blocked the IP from editing. It doesn't seem to have worked (unfortunately, see User talk:150.101.157.18#Caduceus. Not that I'm seeking a 'normal' disruption block - yet. I just thought you might want to know.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi John. As with all IP blocks, the block I did was temporary. It was for 2 weeks. It is very common for IPs to change owners. I looked at the IPs most recent editing and am not seeing any clear indication it is the same person. I believe the original block has served its purpose.

If there is a fresh issue with this IP please feel free to let me know here and I will look closer at the matter. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I inferred (!) that it had to be a static IP, else why complain? Of course that presupposes that the author knows about such arcane lore, which is a big suppose. "No further action at this time". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft Veracity of statements by Joe Biden

greetings: i will ask you because you seem less hysterical than the admin who declined my unblock request. there exists on Wikipedia an article on the veracity of statements made by Donald Trump, and if you look at the deleted revisions for the deleted draft (overlooking my juvenile and POV terminology for Pres Biden) you will see quite a few links to reliable sources questioning the truthfulness of Pres Biden. these links could demonstrate notability for this topic imo, but before i even bother with trying to restart the article i would like to ask you whether this article would stand a chance in hell of surviving on Wikipedia. plz advise if you would be so kind. sincere thanks, 173.87.170.14 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles about living or recently deceased people are held to a much higher standard. Perhaps such an article could exist, however it would be held to those much higher standards. Frankly having read what you wrote I doubt you are willing and able to meet such standards. I suggest you find another subject to contribute to Wikipedia on. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I also find @Yamla:'s interpretation of your block and the actions leading up to it to be very reasonable and far from "hysterical". This gives me further doubts at your capacity to judge your own writing relative to the standards of the project. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

well alright im not going to get defensive over that but i think simply the act of asking you versus how i did it before was an improvement but alright sorry i bothered you. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it was a competency issue. I think it is a bias issue. That article you wrote was clearly an attack on a political figure you don't like. It was not a mistake based on ignorance, it was an intentional attack page. While I am very confident that I can improve a user who is struggling to understand the goals of Wikipedia, I have little confidence that I can convince someone with a strong political bias to act in a neutral fashion. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

You might like to look at this: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AquitaneHungerForce&diff=prev&oldid=1068820319 Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, January 2022

Bots Newsletter, January 2022

BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.

Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.

Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired).

January 2020

Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.

• Y ST47Bot, Seppi333Bot, Qbugbot 4 · N2 PkbwcgsBot 25, PkbwcgsBot 26
• A new Pywikibot release dropped support for Python 3.4, and it was expected that support for Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates. Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022.
• Two new bots dropped in January 2020: ST47Bot, the successor to STBot, and Seppi333Bot, whose task was to perform a weekly update of four "massive" wikitables for WikiProject Molecular Biology.
• Cydebot, an adminbot operated by Cyde since 2006, was blocked after going berserk on categories that hadn't yet been CfD'd.

February 2020

Speaking of WikiProject Molecular Biology, Listeria went wild in February

• Y AnomieBOT 78, Cewbot 2, DannyS712 bot 67, DannyS712 bot III 63, PearBOT 6, DemonDays64 Bot 2 · N2 PearBOT
• On February 1, some concerns were raised about ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator Magnus Manske (who originally coded the Phase II software|precursor of MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved.
• On February 18, ST47Bot got into a tussle with Amalthea (bot), and had to be partially-blocked from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview.

March 2020

• Y MajavahBot, SDZeroBot, TheSandBot 6, TheSandBot 7, Bitbotje, FACBot 6, TheSandBot 8, Qbugbot 5, Cewbot 3, SDZeroBot 2, PrimeBOT 31, WikiCleanerBot 12 · AntiCompositeBot
• In March, a long discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy by Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons -- API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code).
• Some of the twelve bot tasks approved this month were TheSandBot 6 (removing blocked users from Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues), and TheSandBot 7 (removing unblocked users from Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names). SDZeroBot 2 was approved to refine geographic stub tags. New bots approved this month were MajavahBot (to patrol WP:EFFPR), SDZeroBot (to merge stub tags), and Bitbotje (fixing DISPLAYTITLE modifications, DEFAULTSORT errors and broken behavior switches in draftspace).

April 2020

Listeria being examined

• Y TheSandBot 9, BHGbot 5, DannyS712 bot 69, SDZeroBot 3, ST47ProxyBot, WugBot 4, SDZeroBot 4, DatBot 10, WikiCleanerBot 11, WikiCleanerBot 13, WikiCleanerBot 14, AntiCompositeBot 2, Cewbot 4 · N2 DaedanBot 1 · Creffbot
• A discussion on the bot noticeboard, "Re-examination of ListeriaBot", was started by Barkeep49, who pointed out repeated operation outside the scope of its BRFA (i.e. editing pages in mainspace, and adding non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18.
• ST47ProxyBot joined the stable in April, after a BRFA started in December was finally completed. As an adminbot, it was authorized to block IP addresses belonging to open proxies, public VPN services, and web hosts. New tasks approved for existing bots included BHGbot 5 (diffusing categories), TheSandBot 9 (taking over some tasks from the inactive RonBot), and WugBot 4 (updating data at {{Interactive COVID-19 maps}}). Also, DatBot 10 was approved to scale down non-free SVGs — I didn't even know that was a thing.
• A discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy was started by Thryduulf about whether WP:BOTCOMM should explicitly specify that bot operators must be responsive to concerns raised on English Wikipedia specifically (as opposed to Phabricator, SourceForge, Toolforge, et cetera). Eventually, the policy was amended to its current form:

Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.

May 2020

We heard you like bots, so we made a bot that reports the status of your bots, so now you can use bots while you use bots

• Y MajavahBot 3, DannyS712 bot 70, CitationCleanerBot 5, Dreamy Jazz Bot 4, QEDKbot, William Avery Bot 2, DannyS712 bot 68, PrimeBOT 32, TheSandBot 10, Bot1058 7, BHGbot 6, EaglesBot 2, Cewbot 5, WikiCleanerBot 17 · N2 MDanielsBot, PhuzBot 3, Gedimon · ? PearBOT 7
• MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status.
• Other approvals for this month were William Avery Bot 2 (processing redirects in {{R from scientific name}}), DannyS712 bot 68 (allowing users to schedule bot reminders for themselves), TheSandBot 10 (removing blocked/locked users from Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices), Bot1058 7 (updating Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink), Dreamy Jazz Bot 4 (adding {{WikiProject Biography|living=no}} to talk pages where their associated article is in a year of death category), and QEDKbot (deleting and nominating empty categories).
• General syntax fixing tasks were approved for DannyS712 bot 70, CitationCleanerBot 5, PrimeBOT 32, BHGbot 6, Cewbot 5, and EaglesBot 2, as well as WikiCleanerBot 15, 16, and 17.
• Seven bots who fell below activity requirements (with neither the bots nor their operators having any edits or logged actions in two years) had their bot flags removed. They were NekoBot, Robert SkyBot, DASHBotAV, VoxelBot, JackieBot, ReferenceBot, and CensusBot.
• On May 12, EmausBot was blocked.

June 2020

A partial block averted at the eleventh hour for the robot that makes Legos

• Y QEDKbot 2, AnomieBOT 79, WOSlinkerBot 6, Yapperbot 2, Yapperbot, AnomieBOT 80, Dreamy Jazz Bot 5, WikiCleanerBot 18, HasteurBot 15, MusikBot II 4, NoSandboxesHere · N2 RedWarn · ? Seppi333Bot 2
• In July 2017, Headbomb made a proposal that a section of the Wikipedia:Dashboard be devoted to bots and technical issues. In November 2019, Lua code was written superseding Legobot's tasks on that page, and operator Legoktm was asked to stop them so that the new code could be deployed. After no response to pings, a partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored.
• On June 7, RexxS blocked Citation bot for disruptive editing, saying it was "still removing links after request to stop". A couple weeks later, a discussion on the bots noticeboard was opened, saying "it is a widely-used and useful bot, but it has one of the longest block logs for any recently-operating bot on Wikipedia". While its last BRFA approval was in 2011, its code and functionality had changed dramatically since then, and AntiCompositeNumber requested that BAG require a new BRFA. Maintainer AManWithNoPlan responded that most blocks were from years ago (when it lacked a proper test suite), and problems since then had mostly been one-off errors (like a June 2019 incident in which a LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors).
• David Tornheim opened a discussion about whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed: Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so".
• Two new bots had their first BRFAs approved: Yapperbot, to replace Legobot for handling the Feedback Request Service, and NoSandboxesHere, to remove {{user sandbox}} from articles in draftspace using Category:Non-userspace pages using User sandbox.

Conclusion

• What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?

• Will Citation bot ever be set free to roam the project?
• What's the deal with all those book links that InternetArchiveBot is adding to articles?
• Should we keep using Gerrit for MediaWiki?
• What if we had a day for bots to make cosmetic edits?

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the February 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

---

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Lame. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Artist, actor

<Ryu Legalize> Ryu Legalize (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Avoiding edit war

Hello, Last year I got in trouble for edit warring (you denied my appeal), and I would like to avoid that this time. I have changed some of the language I was proposing last year for Peet's Coffee to address some of the objections raised at that time. Some of the editors from that time are knee-jerk reverting/deleting this content without really engaging in good faith on the talk page. I have requested mediation on WP:DNR. One question I have is this: If I am engaged in an edit war with another user, aren't we both guilty of edit warring? This is the aspect of the policy I don't understand. Other users have made little effort to WP:NEGOTIATE, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, or WP:DONTBITE. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory

Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory 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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Take care of yourself, Chillum! Drmies (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Though I have been here for longer than that :) HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks, HighInBC for your contributions to Wikipedia (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 18:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 16:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

BAG membership

Hello. You are listed as a member of the Bot Approvals Group but it appears you may not be actively helping in this area anymore. Do you intend to return to BAG-related activity on Wikipedia, or are you happy to be removed from this list? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have removed your name from the list of active BAG members. Thanks and best wishes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is the best move. Sorry I was not more helpful. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 20:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back?

Hello, HighInBC,

I was looking at an old AFD you participated in and hovered over your name to see when you were last active and saw you were editing today. I hope you are returning! We could use more admin help plus it's great to see once active editors come back after a WikiBreak. Hope to see you around the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I am popping in from time to time. Good to be noticed though! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 16:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What is, or who are "Alcase"?

I happened upon an article titled [ The Questionable Validity of General Booty Wikipedia, (a finely crafted slander against Wikipedia), and couldn't find anything at all about "Alcase.org". It's "About Us" section gives no hint. I emailed brian@alcase.org, (provided by them), linking them to my userpage, my (xtools history), and a 2020 "Independent" article titled Can we trust Wikipedia? 1.4 billion people can't be wrong. I politely expressed the view that their article is wholly misleading and suggested they ought to take it down. I suspect their target audience are sheep and that Alcase are a religious sect "tending the flock". A search for Alcase turns up an unending series of ads for holidays in Alsace, and nothing else.

Either way, Admin need to read the article, (my email to them available, should anyone want it). Mark^Dask 11:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)