User talk:Excirial/Archive 33

Excirial

	Userpage	Talk	Awards	E-Mail	Dashboard	Programs	Sandbox	Sketchbook	Blocknote

 

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

A message from 151.202.43.200

I would like to hire you to assist me in my wiki tasks. I found you because i am a wiki dum dum and touched 1 of your pages. Please contact me via email? freetrial@socialmediaposting.biz to discuss the creation of a few pages or edits or inserts of definitions.. thank for your consideration. 151.202.43.200 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello there 151.202.43.200,

I think the warning templates would have conveyed this but let me rephrase the issue present here:

• Wikipedia is not a vessel for spam or promotional edits. Adding spam or advertising is expressively disallowed and will either attract a block and / or a blacklisting of the spam URL's added.
• Wikipedia is not a means for PR agency's to promote clients. The email address listed suggests you're editing is related to a PR business and used to represent client for promotional edits. Editing as a representative while not explicitly establishing this relation is against the Wikimedia Terms of Use.

If these edits are indeed promotional in nature as the email address suggests i also suggest reading this page. Either way I have no interest whatsoever in being hired for promotional editing in any shape or form and I would strongly caution you against further attempts at promotion or spam on Wikipedia. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Masterlex123

Masterlex123 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Why you remove my link

Hello Masterlex123,

The link you added directs the user to a promotional page offering taxi rental. Par the Wikipedia policy on external links linking to pages that are purely promotional in nature is not allowed. (In specific, see number 4, 5 and 13 on the linked policy page). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Fairchristabelle

Re William Hesketh Lever - could you explain what's going on? Fairchristabelle (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello there Fairchristabelle,

I see your account was created about two months ago so I'll be a bit more verbose in the explanation than I'd usually tend to be, i hope you don't mind the rather long read. Oh, and before i dive into that may i just add: Welcome to Wikipedia!

As for what's happened here:

• Each time you save a page a diff is generated for the edit you just made, and every edit can be anything ranging between a benign to a pure vandalism (Blanking of pages, adding swear words and so on). So in order to ensure Wikipedia doesn't turn into a cesspit overtime these edits have to be checked.
• Personally i check these edits using Huggle, which is essentially a tool that loads each diff made, displays them to the user of the tool and lets them decide if the edit itself was fine or if there is some problem with it.
• One complexity here is that Huggle only displays the last change made to a page (Disclaimer: At least on my configuration of the application). In this specific case i ended up looking at this specific edit. In this edit text "mmm" was added to the page without an accompanying edit summary explaining why the edit was made.

This edit itself looks like a typical test edit that occurs dozens of times each day (Eg: Its the same type of edit people often make to test Wikipedia, its similar to adding "Hello", "test123" or some random characters to a page). Now, whenever a page is reverted this will rollback the last change, but also all previous changes made by the same editor up to the point where another editor made an edit. While the intention was to remove the "mmm" edit the actual effect was that the rollback restored the first edit made by another editor before you (In this case Rodw's edit which was made at the 5 March 2017‎).

Of course this is a revert which had unintended side consequences and I do apologize for those as the rest of the edit naturally shouldn't have been reverted here. I would however advise adding an edit summary to each edit that briefly explains the changes made. Without an edit summary there is no way to know why an edit was actually made so it can only be judged based on its contents. This can be quite difficult at times: If an editor deleted half a pages contents this is often malicious in nature but at times doing so has a very legitimate reason that isn't visible in the diff provided. In these cases an edit summary will often help a lot to explain the nature of an edit. (And prevents any unfortunate run-ins such as this one!).

I hope this explains what happened here and again, apologies for the in retrospect incorrect revert and wall-of-text i ended up generating to explain this one. If something is unclear in this entire explanation just drop me a line and I'll happily elaborate (even more ). Feel free to drop-in as well if you run into some other problem around the Wiki as well; Few things are as interesting as trying to figure out this lovely but complex encyclopedia when just starting out. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

OK understood. The article is important to me as Lever is a fellow Boltoner. The extant article needs much work, both content and style. It poorly structured too. Point taken though and I'll do better in future. Fairchristabelle (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fairchristabelle: Best of luck with that! I took the liberty to clean up the references in the article somewhat and to add some ISBN's to a few listed books that lacked one. I do hope this didn't end up causing edit conflicts with your own work on the article though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Robbie Brady

Hi there. You recently reverted an anonymous user on Robbie Brady's article page. However you only reverted one edit and left the other edit intact (there were 2 edits). The page was completely screwed up as a result. No biggie but I would recommend in future that you give your full attention when reverting vandals and to preview your changes so as not to leave an article in a mess. Thank you.

Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mórtas is Dóchas:: rollback only reverts all sequential edits made by the same user / IP address until it reaches an edit by another user - If a previous revision contains vandalism it won't be reverted as well. Tools such as Huggle display only the changes that would be reverted and not the final shape the page would be in after a revert. This is actually a sane design decision: If Huggle were to load and display a secondary diff after a decision to revert is made this would at least cut patrol efficiency in half.

Consider there are generally somewhere between 140 and 200 edits a minute on EnWiki alone. Though Huggle ignores whitelised and Bot users the actual number of diffs that have to be checked is close to the capacity that a single human editor can match. Chances of "double-up" vandalism such as these two edits are rare whereas chances that vandalism occurs in the new slew of edits are high so in general the same decision is to prioritize the newer edits over double-checking the older edits. Will some vandalism like this get through? Certainly. But vandalism would also have gone through if my edit queue would have been overflowing due to me being busy checking old edits. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the detailed explanation, cheers. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh

Children ... —ATS 🖖 talk 20:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from 39.60.168.119

actually am add the informational site link but wikipedia delete this information whats the matter is this ? 39.60.168.119 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The link you added - http://www.hairtransplantclinicindubai.com - is a commercial website for a company / advertising a company. This is one of the types of external links that shouldn't be added to an article. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for your hard work reverting vandalism. XboxGamer22408talk to me 20:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@XboxGamer22408: Thank you very much Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ed Reed

Branson smith was the 2004 nfl defensive player of the year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:b159:a74d:0:1a:abb7:b01 (talk • contribs)

The Associated Press NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award page lists this reference which seems to cite Ed Reed for this specific title. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Gotgotneed

Hi. forgive me if I'm deleting bits from "Shemira" (The Guarding) page if I'm not meant to. One bit of info I receive says to update and remove the message. See below. "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." Beyond providing the recent further substance to the background to this film (which is in pre-production) I'm not sure how else it's existence and interest to Wikipedia can be substantiated. Please advise. Regards. Adam.

Gotgotneed (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A {{spamublock}} was applied, so i doubt this one needs a response for now. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 00:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Dustmouse3

Thanks for the advice. I'll message Buster7 on his user page. Wikipedia is overwhelming. I wish it was on audible so I could listen to it while I'm doing something even stupider than correcting the grammar of my loved ones: laundry. Dustmouse3 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Dustmouse3 Dustmouse3 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Joe Agbro

Thanks for your earlier message about speedy deletion of 'Sam Oritsetimeyin Omatseye'. I have included reference now to the article. Please, how do I get the page back up? Thanks againJoe Agbro (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Joe Agbro (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I assume is currently located at Draft:Sam Oritsetimeyin Omatseye - it was recreated on the 25th Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from 107.77.204.227

Hey. I must have a shared IP or whatever because I swear to god I didn't do this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:107.77.204.227&redirect=no 107.77.204.227 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That's indeed quite possible - most IP addresses aren't statically allocated. As about a month has passed since the last vandalism, it is very likely it was reassigned to you in the meantime. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Coleary35

re: The link you removed on the Garage Door Opener page: In the paragraph about Garage Door safety, I referenced a block of content on My Garage Door safety page outlining how to do a safety check on your door. I think this was very relevant to the conversation, I linked to a purely informational page about safety, containing only relevant information to the topic and I was purposefully trying to avoid a spammy link by not linking to a home page or a page about products or service. I can see how the immediate assumption would be spam, since the website the page is on does belong to a large contractor, but I do think the information was not only relevant to the paragraph but added something of value to the conversation that was not there before. Could you possibly reconsider leaving the edit in place? Thanks, I understand you have a tough job monitoring this stuff, understand if you disagree with me. That said, the link would not be the only link to a commercial website on that page, there are several links to door opener manufacturer's websites done in a similar way...to content with value to the conversation on page.

Coleary35 (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Coleary35,

Unfortunately the added link isn't simply an edge case that just happened to end up on the wrong side of the external links policy fence - if that were the case i wouldn't have reverted the addition. The added link points to a page which is essentially the poster-child for a promotional page written by a company: It contains a few tidbits of valid information which is absolutely peppered on all sides with promotional content:

• The first content on the page is the massive "Emergency Service Within 1 Hour!" text in large, bold formatting alongside some added phone numbers for the company.
• Then there is a promotional banner, a contact us form, a call us today form with even more phone numbers.
• Then we finally have about half a pages worth of peace and quite before the article ends and states: "We’re Ready to Earn Your Business!" alongside a large image explaining the top 10 reasons to contact the company.

In other words: This page is what I typically characterize as corporate spam - some basic though not especially in depth content surrounded by adds which have the dual purpose of SEO marketing and Direct marketing. If the same sort of content were available on a page that didn't directly violate the external links policy (Number 4 and 5 on the list) it might have been content that could be considered, but as of current this is a clear no-go case as far as external links are concerned. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from 198.11.246.196

198.11.246.196 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I made an edit to Media Life Magazine announcing they were shutting down. It was removed as not constructive. Feels to me like the announcement that an enterprise is shutting down feels pretty important.

@198.11.246.196: I assume you are mentioning this to the wrong person. The page history of the Media Life Magazine displays that this edit was not reverted by me. If you happened to chance upon my username on your talk page, that specific warning mentions an edit made back on 23 February 2015. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Education Noticeboard comment

Hi there,

I just wanted to leave a quick message for some context regarding the Education Noticeboard, since I noticed you've posted there several times recently (and thanks for that) and may be curious about the kinds of responses likely there. ENB/ENI are for the Education Program broadly, but the ones most likely to see/respond to messages there are Wiki Education Foundation (Wiki Ed) staff, which covers the Education Program in the United States and Canada (specifically, post-secondary institutions). High schools and institutions outside of those countries are still relevant TO ENB/ENI, of course, but fall under the WMF Global Education Program. So while we typically try to respond to most posts on the noticeboards regardless, for high schools and institutions outside US/CA, most of what we can offer is (a) trying to connect people outside the US with people in the Education Program in their country (see outreach:Education/Countries), (b) pinging a representative of the Global Education Program (who, while not typically watching, are usually prompt in their response when notified -- {{noping|TFlanagan-WMF} is a good person to ping, specifically), (c) trying to get the instructor to look at Education Program resources and follow those best practices. Anyone is welcome to use the resources we've developed (see this page of our website), and there are others gathered in places like the Outreach Wiki and various Commons categories. Wiki Ed has a Dashboard that instructors use as a course page of sortsThe Programs and Events Dashboard, which is a fork of the Wiki Ed Dashboard software, is also useful as it includes up-to-date interactive training and can be useful for tracking student work.

I say all this for context, since it's a little bit confusing and the projectspace pages on the subject are a bit out of date in places, and to simplify things if you're looking for help with a class. Perhaps this is all old news (I know at least some of it is), in which case apologies for wasting your time. :) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ryan,

Thank you - this is actually quite helpful. Until about three months ago I was on an extended wikibreak (1.5 - 2 years) and due to this I am still busy catching up on the last two years of Wikipedia that I missed. In area's that I generally work in I'm quite up to date by now though in area's I frequent less - such as the education outreach program - I am still behind on the facts. In a sense i am a book on medical science written 10-20 years ago: A lot of the content inside is still valid but some sections may be superseded or downright incorrect due to recent developments.

That said, I am quite surprised that I ran into such a large influx of student and school editors upon returning. Two years ago educational editors were rare to wander into but these days they are a daily occurrence - partially due to the Dashboard and the Wiki Adventure pointing them out though I am certain the absolute number of them also increased. Either way, hat tip to you and the other WikiEd people for managing the school courses; so far it seems to be quite the improvement. Two years ago educational editors were an unusual find but whenever they popped up it invariably meant that something was burning or had outright exploded already. By comparison the editors I run into these days seem to be doing quite well. Hence, just knowing that they are enrolled in a program is beneficial because this indicates they had guidance and are therefore much less likely to spin off on some inexplicable trajectory halfway during their project. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Two years ago... For comparison, in spring 2015 Wiki Ed supported 117 classes with 2319 students, which we thought was a huge number. Spring 2016 was 215 courses and 4193 students. This semester we're supporting 335 [so far] and 6263 students. Basically we hired paid staff to support instructors as well as students and built tools/training. But obviously most of the responsibility for making sure problems are avoided/fixed is with instructors, so we said "ok, we'll make this a lot easier for you and help your students, but you have to agree to follow these best practices." (Avoiding things like huge lecture classes, not using sandboxes, editing high-traffic or controversial subjects without being really careful, undergraduates editing medical/psychological topics too advanced for their level, grading based on what "sticks", etc.). If someone wants to go it alone, or if they're otherwise not part of Wiki Ed, we'll try to get them involved, but otherwise can't be in the business of helping them -- the model isn't sustainable otherwise because those best practices are just too important to ignore. Anecdotally, I'd say that although there are far more students active, the number of "incidents" with classes is probably about the same as two/three/four years ago, but most get resolved rather than escalate. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

regarding editing the topic of housing society

I wish to this info is something went to wrong. i am provide the essential info of that particular topic. but i have a condition.this page is copyright by me.anyone can not change my details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.110.170 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@115.248.110.170: In that case you cannot edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia and Wikipedia's content are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. This license explicitly allows anyone to copy, adapt and change Wikipedia's content, and every edit is automatically licensed under this license. Beyond this pages are never owned by a single editor, no matter if they were the initial creators of the page or supplied a large chunk of content: Pages are always freely editable by everyone. Your conditions - copyright and sole access to a page - are therefore not possible nor acceptable. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from 1618033golden

Can you please block this IP address? 70.59.47.82 I noticed you put several vandalism warning templates (up to level 4) on their talk page. This user was clever, though, and actually blanked the page. I was fooled and put a level 1 template on the then empty page. I noticed the page blank and reverted it, so all the old template messages should be back in place. Thanks! 1.6180339887 golden^{sqᴉɹʇuoɔ} 20:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This user's been at it again, when I checked the user talk page just now it was blank. I might have to stop reverting so I don't break 3RR. 1.6180339887 golden^{sqᴉɹʇuoɔ} 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@1618033golden: The editor is now blocked due to their vandalism. One thing i should point out however, is that removing warnings is allowed. Removing a warning is seen as an indication that the user was made aware of the warning itself. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Lupin vs scripts of Josh

Hi,
I added two scripts by josh to User:Usernamekiran/vector.js but they seem to mess up with Lupin, and Twinkle both. If I keep only "new user patrol" script, Lupin and Twinkle works fine, but sript by Josh doesnt seem to be working. Lupin script is added here: User:Usernamekiran/common.js

Am I doing anying wrong? Your guidance is requested. Thanks. —usernamekiran[talk] 19:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I'm not entirely sure why they wouldn't work, though i would note that the scripts were origionally developed for the old default Mono skin and not for the current default Vector skin. You could try switching skins to determine if that may be the cause of the script not working. Alternatively, try a different browser and see if that works. Personally i use Mozilla Firefox combined with the Mono skin and that works a-ok for me. I also use Twinkle (Though i don't use Lupin anymore) and doing so doesn't create any conflicts. Beyond that i use several other scripts and none of those create any conflict with Josh's scripts. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I think the same. Do you these scripts too? —usernamekiran[talk] 21:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from 107.77.203.183

I got some warning from you about Andy cap fries. I did not write anything about it. I don't share this Ip with anyone. But now that you mention it those fries suck01:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)107.77.203.183 (talk) 107.77.203.183 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

A message from 2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:73

I've never heard of this guy:Josiah Gorgas and I did not edit your page.

2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:73 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

A message from Abiz84

Hello!! Thanks for your help with my Lesbian Bars in SF page. I just had to make it live for a class, no worries about moving it back. I tried submitting this in Lesbian Bars in general but Wikipedia won't let me submit under this name (I think because it is automatically linked to gay bar) -- how do I disarticulate this? Thank you. Abiz84 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Abiz84,

The page currently cannot be moved to Lesbian bar because that page already exists as a redirect page - in order to move your current page the redirect would have to be deleted. The easier method to achieve this is to add a request on the Requested Page Moves page. However, before doing so ensure that your new article is up to standards for an article in the main space. The page as currently written in the sandbox is still heavily focussing on San Francisco, so as of current i wouldn't consider a move to a generic article such as lesbian bar to be a good idea. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello!! Thank you for your help. I think my sandbox should be good to go - and I attempted to ask for a deletion of that redirect, though not sure if I succeeded. Any thoughts? Thanks. Abiz84 (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from 72.0.166.85

Collapsed for talk page readability

Hi Excirial-- My name is Blake Weber. I started my first wikipedia username (i think it was blakenathanweber) about 3 years ago and attempted to make a few edits to one page. They were immediately removed by an editor named Binksternet. I have not used my wiki account before or after that experience due to the fact it appeared truth was not given a place and this one editor had earned enough "weight" to just do as he wishes. I am contacting you about the wikipedia page called On Becoming Babywise. This is the name of a book. Some refer to this book as "Babywise." I noticed that you recently made a large edit and I wanted to ask you a few questions in hopes I can better understand what Wikipedia's hopes for true neutrality. A little bit of history on myself and my knowledge of Babywise. When Binksternet told me there might be a conflict of interest in my "placing true, sourced fact" on the wiki page, I asked where I can fully explain who I am and my knowlege/connection to Babywise. He sent me to a talk page. So I went to the provided talk page and gave the full history how I worked at Multnomah Publishers in the 1990s and was fully aware of this book and all of its history as I was one of the 148 employees at Multnoamh. In 2001, I started a publishing company and today I am the CEO of Hawksflight & Associates who is the sole publisher of On Becoming Babywise. Thus, I have been with Babywise since the beginning in the early 1990s and am still publishing this #1 best seller. I am the son of a preacher who is also a best selling author and have been in the publishing world now for 25 years. You can read all of this about myself on this wikipedia talk page that Binksternet set up for me about 3 years ago-- I typed it all in myself. What I am having trouble understanding is it appears that still today there are sourced edits that are made to Babywise wiki page that are simply removed immediately by Binksternet regardless of their sources, following the wiki guidelines, etc. One of the things that didn't pass the smell test several years ago was when Binksternet typed a message to me after pulling all my sourced edits of truth that said he thinks the Babywise author is a religious fanatic with no medical background who grabbed a young no-name pediatrician to rumerstamp his nonsense. Excirial-- your wiki page says you have 212,345 edits. Wow, you have been at this for a while. That tells me you have an incredible understanding of the Wiki system, rules, guidelines, and hopes for overall neutrality. It says you have protected 208 pages since 2010 and blocked over 4,800 users. Again, you have been very busy on this site and seem to have a fabulous grasp on how it works. I won't beat around the bush-- my desire is to understand from you how and why Binksternet should not be blocked from touching the Babywise page. Let me explain a bit further. When i saw your edit to the Babywise page (obviously you were trying to be fair and without making anything personal, you felt there was something fishy about that edit), I noticed Binksternet in the history portion also made a similar edit a few months ago. The day after Binksternet's edit in the history, I see today that Amazon's Babywise page was flooded with NASTY one star reviews on Babywise. Now you might say: that is or could be a coincidence. I would agree that it could be and might look like a coincidence. But part of being the publisher for Babywise for the last 25 years and 5 million copies sold is that I watch the Amazon site at least 3 times a day on the average day. So I know that over the last 5 years +, our Amazon Babywise page gets about 9 reviews that are 4 or 5 star for every 1 review that is one star. 10% across the board did not like the book. It is very rare to see two reviews on Amazon in a row that are ONE star. But moments after Binksternets' edit a few months ago, there were 8 terrible ONE star reviews posted (and they were not normal reviews that comment on the contents of the book, they were philosophical tear downs and character assassination style reviews. One more direct observation about Binksternet. It appears on the history page of Wiki Babywise that when Binksternet made his edit of restoring old copy a few months ago he decided to add one paragraph. When you read the paragraph that Binksternet added that day, it is a clear false statement and obvious lie without source. His claim in this edit was that the AAP has warned against Babywise. Excirial, the AAP has NEVER warned against Babywise. The AAP represents 62,000 Pediatricians and they have never mentioned Babywise. They have never made a formal statement about Babywise. You can look up on their website today and type in Babywise, you will find nothing. How does Binksternet get away with this type of personal opinion flinging? Neutral is my goal, but it is not the historical pursuit that Binksternet has proven to follow. About three years ago I asked Binksternet following his pulling my edits off the wiki page: why is it that he pulled my descriptive word for "Distinguished" in describing 28 year Pediatrician and co-author of the #1 selling baby sleep guide on earth while he leaves the descriptor "popular" in describing the competition William Sears down below on the Babywise Wikipedia page? Binksternet told me that William Sears had "earned" the adjective "popular". Babywise has sold 5 million copies and today is the #1 Best Seller on Amazon.com in Sleep Disorders, Breastfeeding, Single Parenting, Children's Health, Infants, Child Care, and Twins & Multiples. Babywise outsells and outranks all of William Sears books on Amazon and on every website. One of the edits of truth I had added several years ago that were not allowed by Binksternet was mentioning the incredible resume of 28 year Pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D. who co-wrote Babywise in the early 90s with Gary Ezzo, M.A. and has directed 5 full revisions over the last 25 years taking Babywise from 160 pages in its first edition to 279 pages in todays updated and revised edition. Binksternet decided several years ago to pull all mention of Dr. Bucknam, his resume, and his thriving practice in multiple hospitals with 37 other licensed Pediatricians. Instead, Binksternet reinstitute the multiple sections of the wikipedia Babywise page that speak about the lack of medical support, credentials, an backing. In fact, in this regard- Binksternet has reinstated several sentences onto the wiki page about how many medical professionals are alarmed and disagree with Babywise, but he does not cite the dozen Pediatricians that endorse Babywise in the book itself along with Professors of Pediatrics, R.N.C.L.E., Obstetricians, Pediatric Neurologist, Pediatric Cardiologist, and International Pediatricians. It seems as though Binksternet is excited about protecting all criticism (of which was voiced over 20 years ago with the first edition of Babywise) and making sure all medical support and credentials are removed from the wiki page. It doesn't really smell like "neutrality" to me. Binksternet called the author's website that serves hundreds of thousands of new mothers each year a questionable source and pulled it. I see that Wikipedia sources our competitions' website on their own page 4 times in the foot notes: What to Expect and Whattoexpect.com. So that doesn't seem real consistent or fair by Binksternet. Several years ago, I had placed quotes from the best selling Babywise book itself on the page in one location and sourced it, and Binksternet said that is not a useable source. Our competition Solve Your Child's Sleep Problems sources a book (The Baby Sleep Book) on source #4 on its wiki page and that is allowed. Again, not super consistent and seems unfair. Binksternet has pulled the "external links" to the authors' website on the Babywise wiki page and I see all kinds of authors on wiki are allowed to have their websites shown at the bottom of their wiki pages under "external links" such as: Ann Coulter, What to Expect, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh etc. Binksternet removed from the Babywise wiki page a listing of the authors other 9 books under "other titles" and I see wikipedia has a standard treatment of other like authors in showing all their other books at the end of their wiki pages under "other titles". Binksternet has allowed the criticism and negative narrative on Babywise to be in multiple sections of the Babywise wiki page whereas I see other authors (like Harvy Carp on Happiest Baby on the Block) have all their criticism plainly listed and confined to the "criticism" section. Excirial-- my biggest concern in observing Binksternet and his practices over several years is that his edit he just decided to add a few months ago about the AAP WARNING AGAINST BABYWISE is a clear attempt to show one side of the same story. I will explain: The Babywise wiki page cites a small abstract that is the personal opinion of one doctor named Aney in 1998 where a small magazine called the AAP News carried Aney's pesonal opinion. Again, this was a negative personal opinion shared by Dr. Aney in a small magazine called the AAP News after Aney didn't agree with the FIRST edition of Babywise in 1998. Binksternet confuses reality (it appears on purpose) for the reader because he does not cite the FOUR DOCTORS COMPLETE REBUTTALS also published in the AAP News in 1998 taking issue with Aney, debunking his claims, and asserting that they are finding tremendous success with Babywise in their private practices with clients. Binksternet does not mention or cite this same source the very next month. It appears in observing Binksternet's behavior over many, many years that he has an ax to grind with Babywise. Excirial- I really appreciated your talk page and your experience. You mentioned one does not need to fear retribution and that an administrator like yourself is just a user with a mop and a bucket. I have done all I know how to do to keep unpromotional truth at the forefront of my comments. I have kept sourced truth only on the tip of my tongue. Neutrality is of great interest to me. What must I do to take my case in search of truth being given its rightful platform and seeking to block all those who do not seek true neutrality? I have laid out some examples here today for you to review and discover if unpromotional truth that is fairly sourced and accepted by Wiki guidelines is allowed on the Babywise wiki page. It is my belief that Binksternet is and has shown a clear desire to slant the narrative, block fair truth that is sourced, and tell a story on Babywise that he wants to be read by all in an attempt to give Babywise a black eye. Would you mind emailing me at weber8993@aol.com as I am not super well versed on the wiki system and knowing how and where to find your response to me? I am grateful for all your hard work on Wikipedia and look forward to learning more about the quest for neutrality and how I can best serve its interests for Wiki's rules and guidelines. Thank you! Blake Weber, 8/8/17, wiki old user name: Blakenathanweber, my email: weber8993@aol.com 72.0.166.85 (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello 72.0.166.85,

My only involvement in the On Becoming Baby Wise is reverting this edit which, aside from removing the formatting, removed all the references from the page. Similar edits were made in the past and reverted by other editors using the same rationale. Now, if i read the above text correctly - and please DO try to keep TL;DR in mind next time - this is effectively a content dispute were you disagree with Binksternets edits to the page. In cases such as these my advice will be to contact the editor and discuss the situation with them. Personally I am effectively just a passer-by who has no specific knowledge of or interest in the page itself, and on first glance i see no need for any form of administrative action either.

If you merely wish my assessment of the situation i would point out that Binksternets interest in the page seems natural as he wrote most of it back in 2011. Below exemplifies it. The first revision was the page before Binksternet's work on it, the second revision is after his work.

• 12 April 2011: 3,297 bytes worth of data
• 21 July 2011: 19,507 bytes worth of data

Looking at the last 50 edits to this page (2012 till now), I'd agree with the neutrality reverts made. Wording such as "and shared with some friends who also found incredible success" is little more than promotional cruft. I would also point to this specific edit which Binksternet reverted - if the goal was to slander the book ignoring this edit would have been quite simple. After looking at the talk page i do see something rather odd going on there:

• 22 March 2017, 16:24: Aschetter24 posted a comment on the talk page related to this situation.
• 8 April 2017, 18:47: Account MTmomof3 was registered.
• 9 April 2017, 03:11: Account MTmomof3's first edit was responding to the talk page message claiming not to be related to Aschetter24.
• 10 April 2017, 02:40: Account WikiMonica Brown was registered.
• 10 April 2017, 02:50: Account MTmomof3's first edit was responding to the talk page message.

The article itself is visited about 120 times a day, whereas the talk page has less than one visitor a day in the last four months (Mode and mean both being 0 for that period). The chance that two random people would register just to comment on such a low traffic page without either being sockpuppets or canvassed is exceptionally low. This is somewhat worrisome because inappropriate canvassing and especially sockpuppetry are specifically against Wikipedia policy - so i do hope this is just an odd one-time flare-up that doesn't warrant further looking into it.

In short: If you believe that Binksternet's editing is a problem please discuss this with him, though i would add that my own (cursory) review of the page revealed no edits i wouldn't understand / have made myself if I encountered these. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from 72.0.166.85

TL;DR

72.0.166.85 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you Excirial for responding to my questions about Babywise in the last 48 hours. Sorry that I don't know how to reply to your comment on your talk page, so I am just making a new comment to ya to follow up. Again, I am grateful for another pair of eyes to tell me what you see. Your wisdom was to contact Binksternet directly and I did that about 3 years ago. And here is what he told me directly: THE BOOK IS A TRAVESTY OF BAD ADVICE, WRITTEN BY A CHRISTIAN HUSBAND/WIFE TEAM WHO HAD WORN OUT THE PATIENCE OF THEIR CHURCH. THE BOOK WAS RUBBER-STAMPED BY A YOUNG PEDIATRICIAN WITH NO REPUTATION. Excirial- does that sound like the voice of neutrality as he makes edits of his own and removes other people's edits? It sounds and feels like a major personal bias and agenda against Babywise and its authors. His opinion is "travesty of bad advice." He singles out the author's faith though it is not brought up in the book. Binksternet says it was written by "wife" team and it was not. He talks about their church inaccurately (I was at Multnomah Publishers when CEO Donald C. Jacobson invited any of the churches that had supposedly kicked the Ezzos out to come and speak the truth and NOBODY came or spoke). He says Dr. Bucknam has no reputation (Bucknam in 28 years of private practice and authorship currently outsells all the 6 doctors that are on the wiki page that oppose Babywise). Binksternet says Bucknam "rubber-stamped" a book (Dr. Bucknam has overseen 5 complete revisions since the early edition of Babywise taking Babywise from 160 pages originally to 279 pages today). Binksternet is not informed and inaccurate in his personal bias and agenda against Babywise and its authors. A little bit of history on myself and my knowledge of Babywise. When Binksternet told me there might be a conflict of interest in my "placing true, sourced fact" on the wiki page several years ago, I asked where I can fully explain who I am and my knowlege/connection to Babywise. He sent me to a talk page. So I went to the provided talk page and gave the full history how I worked at Multnomah Publishers in the 1990s and was fully aware of this book and all of its history as I was one of the 148 employees at Multnoamh. In 2001, I started a publishing company and today I am the CEO of Hawksflight & Associates who is the sole publisher of On Becoming Babywise. Thus, I have been with Babywise since the beginning in the early 1990s and am still publishing this #1 best seller. I am the son of a preacher who is also a best selling author and have been in the publishing world now for 25 years. You can read all of this about myself on this wikipedia talk page that Binksternet set up for me about 3 years ago-- I typed it all in myself. What I am having trouble understanding is it appears that still today there are sourced edits that are made to Babywise wiki page that are simply removed immediately by Binksternet regardless of their sources, following the wiki guidelines, etc. I noticed Binksternet in the history portion also made an edit a few months ago. The day after Binksternet's edit in the history, I see today that Amazon's Babywise page was flooded with NASTY one star reviews on Babywise. Now you might say: that is or could be a coincidence. I would agree that it could be and might look like a coincidence. But part of being the publisher for Babywise for the last 25 years and 5 million copies sold is that I watch the Amazon site at least 3 times a day on the average day. So I know that over the last 5 years +, our Amazon Babywise page gets about 9 reviews that are 4 or 5 star for every 1 review that is one star. 10% across the board did not like the book. It is very rare to see two reviews on Amazon in a row that are ONE star. But moments after Binksternets' edit a few months ago, there were 8 terrible ONE star reviews posted (and they were not normal reviews that comment on the contents of the book, they were philosophical tear downs and character assassination style reviews. One more direct observation about Binksternet. It appears on the history page of Wiki Babywise that when Binksternet made his edit of restoring old copy a few months ago he decided to add one paragraph. When you read the paragraph that Binksternet added that day, it is a clear false statement and obvious lie without source. His claim in this edit was that the AAP has warned against Babywise. Excirial, the AAP has NEVER warned against Babywise. The AAP represents 62,000 Pediatricians and they have never mentioned Babywise. They have never made a formal statement about Babywise. You can look up on their website today and type in Babywise, you will find nothing. How does Binksternet get away with this type of personal opinion flinging? Neutral is my goal, but it is not the historical pursuit that Binksternet has proven to follow. About three years ago I asked Binksternet following his pulling my edits off the wiki page: why is it that he pulled my descriptive word for "Distinguished" in describing 28 year Pediatrician and co-author of the #1 selling baby sleep guide on earth while he leaves the descriptor "popular" in describing the competition William Sears down below on the Babywise Wikipedia page? Binksternet told me that William Sears had "earned" the adjective "popular". Babywise has sold 5 million copies and today is the #1 Best Seller on Amazon.com in Sleep Disorders, Breastfeeding, Single Parenting, Children's Health, Infants, Child Care, and Twins & Multiples. Babywise outsells and outranks all of William Sears books on Amazon and on every website. One of the edits of truth I had added several years ago that were not allowed by Binksternet was mentioning the incredible resume of 28 year Pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D. who co-wrote Babywise in the early 90s with Gary Ezzo, M.A. and has directed 5 full revisions over the last 25 years taking Babywise from 160 pages in its first edition to 279 pages in todays updated and revised edition. Binksternet decided several years ago to pull all mention of Dr. Bucknam, his resume, and his thriving practice in multiple hospitals with 37 other licensed Pediatricians. Instead, Binksternet reinstitute the multiple sections of the wikipedia Babywise page that speak about the lack of medical support, credentials, an backing. In fact, in this regard- Binksternet has reinstated several sentences onto the wiki page about how many medical professionals are alarmed and disagree with Babywise, but he does not cite the dozen Pediatricians that endorse Babywise in the book itself along with Professors of Pediatrics, R.N.C.L.E., Obstetricians, Pediatric Neurologist, Pediatric Cardiologist, and International Pediatricians. It seems as though Binksternet is excited about protecting all criticism (of which was voiced over 20 years ago with the first edition of Babywise) and making sure all medical support and credentials are removed from the wiki page. It doesn't really smell like "neutrality" to me. Binksternet called our author's website, that serves hundreds of thousands of new mothers each year, a questionable source and pulled it. I see that Wikipedia sources our competitions' website on their own page 4 times in the foot notes: What to Expect and Whattoexpect.com. So that doesn't seem real consistent or fair by Binksternet. Several years ago, I had placed quotes from the best selling Babywise book itself on the page in one location and sourced it, and Binksternet said that is not a useable source. Our competition Solve Your Child's Sleep Problems sources a book (The Baby Sleep Book) on source #4 on its wiki page and that is allowed. Again, not super consistent and seems unfair. Binksternet has pulled the "external links" to the authors' website on the Babywise wiki page and I see all kinds of authors on wiki are allowed to have their websites shown at the bottom of their wiki pages under "external links" such as: Ann Coulter, What to Expect, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh etc. Binksternet removed from the Babywise wiki page a listing of the authors other 9 books under "other titles" and I see wikipedia has a standard treatment of other like authors in showing all their other books at the end of their wiki pages under "other titles". Binksternet has allowed the criticism and negative narrative on Babywise to be in multiple sections of the Babywise wiki page whereas I see other authors (like Harvy Carp on Happiest Baby on the Block) have all their criticism plainly listed and confined to the "criticism" section. Myy biggest concern in observing Binksternet and his practices over several years is that his edit he just decided to add a few months ago about the AAP WARNING AGAINST BABYWISE is a clear attempt to show one side of the same story. I will explain: The Babywise wiki page cites a small abstract that is the personal opinion of one doctor named Aney in 1998 where a small magazine called the AAP News carried Aney's pesonal opinion. Again, this was a negative personal opinion shared by Dr. Aney in a small magazine called the AAP News after Aney didn't agree with the FIRST edition of Babywise in 1998. Binksternet confuses reality (it appears on purpose) for the reader because he does not cite the FOUR DOCTORS COMPLETE REBUTTALS also published in the AAP News in 1998 taking issue with Aney, debunking his claims, and asserting that they are finding tremendous success with Babywise in their private practices with clients. Binksternet does not mention or cite this same source the very next month. It appears in observing Binksternet's behavior over many, many years that he has an ax to grind with Babywise. I have done all I know how to do to keep unpromotional truth at the forefront of my comments. I see many others doing the same over the years. I have kept sourced truth only on the tip of my tongue. Neutrality is of great interest to me. What must I do to take my case in search of truth being given its rightful platform and seeking to block all those who do not seek true neutrality? I have laid out some examples here today for you to review and discover if unpromotional truth that is fairly sourced and accepted by Wiki guidelines is allowed on the Babywise wiki page. It is my belief that Binksternet is and has shown a clear desire to slant the narrative, block fair truth that is sourced, and tell a story on Babywise that he wants to be read by all in an attempt to give Babywise a black eye. Excirial, I am grateful for your wisdom on how the wikipedia family and patrons best navigate such issues. You were very kind to tell me that over 120 new moms are on our wiki page about Babywise every day. That is over 1,000 new mothers a week that are looking to read the truth about Babywise. Currently, Babywise's page lists, describes, quotes, and gives resume to 6 doctors/authors that oppose Babywise. The Babywise wiki page cites NO doctors that support, endorse, and use successfully in their practice the Babywise book and principles. How can 6 opposition doctors and no supporting doctors be allowed on a neutral page about a book. Granted, this book Babywise outsells all 6 doctors/authors 5 to 1 currently. But why the listing of opposition and no listing of supportive medical fact or authors? Thank you for your time and for helping me understand the wikipedia guidelines of neutrality. 72.0.166.85 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Blake Weber, 8/10/17, wiki old user name: Blakenathanweber, my email: weber8993@aol.com72.0.166.85 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned the need for brevity previously I'll be hatting this as Too Long, Didn't Read. A three A4 page long reply is well beyond the length of reply I generally read. And this especially applies if the original question was of equal length yet is 90% identical to the reply. My previous rationale still applies as well - if you disagree with Binksternet over content discuss this disagreement with him, even moreso if the last contact was three years ago. Balancing a page towards neutrality is an eternal process and perhaps some tweaks could be useful. Either way i consider this edit to be detrimental: Removing all references, misformatting the page and turning it into a promotional piece is not an improvement.

As for myself: I'm a non involved observer and with no clear administrative action needed I see no reason whatsoever to become involved in this situation. If i were to become involved in this matter it would be over suspected sockpuppetry i currently suspect. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I completely understand not wanting to read all the times and examples that I have listed where Binksternet has removed truthful sourced information and added false statements with partial sources and misleading commentary he wrote himself. Would you be so kind as to tell me where on Wikipedia I can access a fair minded editor with a lot of "weight" in this neutrality community called wikipedia that does have the time to read at least my four main complaints with Binksternets' clear violations to this page about the #1 baby sleep guide on earth? It seems as though Wikipedia is a haven for no accountability other than the editor with the most edits gets to have his way with the truth. I do understand the eternal pursuit of neutrality on the page, but with 6 opposition doctors quoted with resumes on the Babywise page and no mention of Dr. Bucknam's resume or the dozens of published authors who have endorsed Babywise. Here is the quote Binksternet typed to me last time he communicated with me: THE BOOK IS A TRAVESTY OF BAD ADVICE, WRITTEN BY A CHRISTIAN HUSBAND/WIFE TEAM WHO HAD WORN OUT THE PATIENCE OF THEIR CHURCH. THE BOOK WAS RUBBER-STAMPED BY A YOUNG PEDIATRICIAN WITH NO REPUTATION. That sounds like an ax to grind and a personal agenda with bias to me. If you could be so kind as to direct me to a place on Wikipedia where I might find a highly qualified editor that would have the time to read at least four of my documented violations committed by Binksternet on the Babywise wiki page-- I would be very grateful. Thank you.

72.0.166.85 (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Blake Weber, 4/10/2017, old wiki user name: Blakenathanweber

@72.0.166.85: The first step in resolving a dispute is to discuss the situation with the the other editor involved (discussions held three years in the past won't apply for this criteria). If such a discussion doesn't yield any results one of the various options listed on this page can be used. Also, please note that any form of dispute resolution effectively requires that discussion took place beforehand. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 06:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Finders International

Hi,

I received your message as I was trying to correct some information about my company, named above. We uploaded a Wikipedia page to clarify who we are and what we do. This was then "hijacked" by unknown users who modified the page to link derisory and inaccurate content. I have tried to correct this by my edits, but you sent an alert which stated you think I may be being paid to do this. Finders International was founded by me 20 years ago and I have 27 years industry experience. I noticed some companies have explanatory pages in Wikipedia about who they are. If I'm in breach of something could you kindly explain what and how and if I can protect this page from being "hijacked" again? If protection from inaccurate editing is not possible I would rather the whole page is removed, which would be a shame of course. I'd be grateful for your advice. Kind regards, Daniel Curran, MD, see www.findersinternational.co.uk thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeirHunters (talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello HeirHunters,

I think there are multiple issues i need to remark on here.

• If you receive financial remuneration for editing you are explicitly required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer / client / affiliation. Editing as a company employee applies in all instances, regardless of the role at the company. Marketeer, designer, programmer, administrative personnel or director are all considered to be paid employees.
• I see that you refer to yourself as "we" in the above text. I'd have to specifically note that sharing accounts is not allowed on Wikipedia. I'd also have to point out that naming an account after a company or a product isn't allowed either. If either applies here - and i believe at least the second one does - please request a username change on this page.
• Wikipedia pages are never owned by a specific editor and neither are they protected against editing by any user. Any editor is free to edit a page within policy requirements and no editor can enforce their own "prefered" version of a page to be displayed.
• In tandem with the above: Wikipedia stives for neutrality in an article, which is done by writing articles based on reliable sources. The edit you labelled as inaccurate seemed to be supported by two references citing The Daily Telegraph which is generally known to be a reliable source. Note that content that is negative in tone is expressively allowed as long as its sourced (For example: Have a look at the long Criticism of Wikipedia article and the controversy sections in other company's wiki pages). Either way, verifiability trumps truth: If a reliable source states "A" and no other reliable source states "B", the "A" statement is included as it can be sourced. In optimal conditions an article is little more than a summary of external references.

Beyond this i would advise reading the FAQ for Businesses as it covers the majority of the questions business owners or employees tend to ask when editing Wikipedia on corp related matters. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from LSIElgin

Excirial,

You just deleted the content which I created for LSI. I used these wiki pages for context when developing the content for LSI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HUGE_(digital_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Porter_%2B_Bogusky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_(advertising_agency)

What specific content varied further than the above, to elicit "soapbox" and advertising? The LSI milestones in the history section are no different than the Notable Campaigns from Mother and Wieden+Kennedy.

Please be specific so that I may expedite getting LSI's page completed.

Thanks, Tyler LSIElgin (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@LSIElgin: I would advice reading the FAQ for organisations thoroughly first, as it will likely cover most questions. To summarize what applies to this page: The article its strait-up advertising, its unreferenced, there is no claim to notability and its being written by an edit who has a conflict of interest related to the subject. On a more technical matter it was placed on top of a disambiguation page but considering the other issues that is a more minor concern. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

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.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)