I reply to your message here, for the sake of keeping discussions un-fragmented — I suggest temporarily watching this page.
Please be civil when contacting me, just tell me what I did calmly and I will honestly look into it.
I archive this page periodically. Sometimes I may archive a post that I haven't replied to! So if I accidentally archive a request that I didn't perform, please remind me to reply.
Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Orphaned non-free media (File:Front mag.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Front mag.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be OK if you or I tried unblocking this IP address, it has been blocked for the better part of two years? It was part of a list I initiated a discussion about here. Thanks, –xeno (talk)18:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting unprotection of Mount Carmel High School, (San Diego, California)
[Mount Carmel High School (San_Diego, California)] has been protected indefinitely since November 2008 due to vandalism. That seems quite a heave handed step for a page that is vandalized maybe once ever 2 months (like most high school wiki pages are). In the mean time, constructive edits are also blocked.
Since you were the admin who initiated the protection, can Mt. Carmel High School be unblocked so that even registered users can edit it? I need to make a constructive change (Bobby Lee did not go to Mt. Carmel, since according to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040917/news_lz1c17bobby.html he went to rival Poway High School, and needs to be removed from alumni.) and am prevented from doing so by your block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarrien (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page is only edit protected from unregistered and newly registered users. After you have been registered for a few days you may edit it.— OcatecirT05:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My user account, although mostly inactive since I like editing anonymously, has been registered for over 6 months (at least September 2008 when I last made edits while logged in). The article may be over protected, or my user account may have issues. I see you've made the edits (thanks!), but I still argue that Mt. Carmel High School's article should have the protection reduced, if not removed altogether. Mbarrien (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once you reach 10 edits your account will be autoconfirmed. I'm not going to unprotect it because the page attracts a high level of vandalism when unprotected. This does not affect the qualtiy of the page as high quality additions rarely come from anonymous IPs. Once a user takes the time to register and understand the rules of wikipedia the quality of their posts increases. — OcatecirT14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fan of Slightly Stoopid and to be completely transparent, I'm an intern for Silverback Artist Mangement. I'm also a musician myself and understand how these pages and help one's careers. It seems that the content on the slightly stoopid pages is a bit lacking (as well as the other artists managed by Silverback) and I was hoping you might be able to help me improve the content for these artist. I mean, Silverback isn't even on the slightly stoopid article and we manage them, haha. Anything you can do to help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, and I hope this reaches you in good spirits!
Kindest Regards,
Will B.
Wikipedia has standards, specifically regarding notability, sourcing, and most notably in your case, conflict of interest. While this may preclude you from improving hte article, it doesn't mean someone else can't. It ust needs to conform to wikipedia's standards if it is to last. Cheers, — OcatecirT13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing back. Do you have any suggestions to people who might be able to help me out? I definitely would not want to violate any Wiki standards, as I am a fan of Wikipedia and would prefer to keep the content consistent with organizational guidelines. Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
You protected this page back in January 2008 - please can you now unprotect it for a while? I'd like to add some tags and remove some non-notables. Thanks. 58.8.4.113 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed that this article and its talk page, which you semiprotected in December 2007 and June 2008 respectively, might be unprotected and watched with great vigilance to see if the problem has gone away. --TS22:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Since you've been so adventurous, you may as well go ahead and unprotect the article's talk page, too! --TS21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until you have a source stating that what Beckwith described as the training process, stop changing it. As an admin, I'd expect you to have a stronger grasp of WP:V. Also, don't blindly revert another good-faith editor without explanation; I would have hoped you also had a better understanding of our policy against edit-warring. Not to mention your inappropriate use of the rollback button. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respond to most of these attacks on your talk page, but I will point out that that I did provide an explanation on the talk page, so it was not a blind revert, you just failed to check. — OcatecirT02:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm a friend of Parsec's. Without looking at what is in dispute (I'm lazy ;-), can I suggest soliciting outside opinions from WT:MILHIST? Sometimes an uninvolved editor who has knowledge of the topic can come in and provide good thoughts without needing [{WP:DR]] or arbitration. Just my two cents. Cheers, —Ed(talk • contribs)03:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome all opinions, but I don't feel like the source of this is lack of knowledge on the subject but a question of being as accurate as possible given the sources and of blind reversion without thought on how the section can be improved. As far as going to a project for arbitration, my experience with wiki projects is that there is sometimes a compulsion to defend the project's articles from outsiders, so I would rather go the normal process for dispute resolution by neutral editors. — OcatecirT03:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that almost 30 years have passed makes it irrelevant whether or not it has actually changed or not (though it most certainly has had to). The fact is, with such outdated sources, it is not honest or accurate to sell them as supporting what the present days selection is like. No one can purport to know what the selection is like today because it is highly guarded so no sources will likely exist describing modern-day methods. The text as it is written hurts Wikipedia's credibility and is putting out misinformation by definitively stating that's what the current selection entails. If you notice all I'm advocating is a change of language to reflect what it has been described as in the past based on the sources we DO have, instead definitively asserting what it looks like today. — OcatecirT17:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on another glance, many of the statements about what SFOD-D looks like today are supporting by these 20-30 year old accounts, so this needs to be applied to the entire article. I think an article rewrite is in order. If you aren't willing to help me I will do it myself. — OcatecirT17:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem, Ocatecir. You think the material is out of date, given that it was published 20-30 years ago. Fine. You feel it is reasonable to assume much has changed in those years. Fine. Do we write articles based on what we think is reasonable? No. We write them based on the sources at hand. If you want to change some of the wording so that it is very clear to the reader that the information we're using is 20-30 years old, and may be out of date, that's fine, but you can't go so far as to label it explicitly as historical without a source stating as much. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I have no problem with changing the word "historical", so long as it reflects the fact that the accounts we are quoting describe the selection process in it's first few evolutions (Haney's was the third ever OTC). Why couldnt we have had this discussion in the first place without a blanket revert? — OcatecirT02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RBHS Redirect Page
Hey Ocatecir, I just wanted to bring to your attention that the redirect page, RBHS, which is protected indefinitely by you, should also redirect to Rock Bridge High School, since both schools have oppressively long names, and the same initials. Thanks, MWLXVC (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Raven Riley, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.02:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Ivysupersonic.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ivysupersonic.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk)22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Sam Nazarian, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting unprotection of Rancho Bernardo High School
Semi-protection of Rancho Bernardo High School was supposed to expire in March 2009, almost 2 1/2 years ago and almost 3 years since you protected it. In fact, looking at the edit history, I removed the protection template 6 months ago thinking it had fully expired. Keeping the page locked down this long for the small possibility of manageable vandalism is a bit much. Since you are the administrator who added the protection, I'd like to request unprotection of the page to allow anonymous users to edit it. 76.102.151.192 (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotecting RBHS, convert to disambiguation page
Thank you for unprotecting Rancho Bernardo High School. I would similarly like to request unprotection of the "RBHS" redirection page, so that it can be converted into a disambiguation page. You are the protecting admin for that page too. The disambiguation would be for Rock Bridge High School, as requested on your user talk page 1 1/2 years ago, a request that was never acted upon.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Bojacksonhitandrun.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, Ocatecir. 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.
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)
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) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Ocatecir.
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.
Hello, Ocatecir. 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.
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
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.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Hello, Ocatecir. 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.
Hello, Ocatecir. 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.
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Looking for page about make Sanders (Strida bike designer) Noticed you deleted it > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Axis77a
Why ? there seems to be plenty of notable work even from the link in page above.
Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Helen (let’s talk) 00:05, 22 June 2021 (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)
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.
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.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Fausto Vitello.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fausto Vitello.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Hey there Ocatecir, I'd like to wish you a happy adminship anniversary! Congratulations on your special day, and thank you for all the contributions you've made.
Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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.
Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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.
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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.
){kind=link}
