User talk:SlimVirgin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Derkovits, Gyula - Sleeping Woman.jpg


Archives

2013: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2014: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2015: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2016: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2017: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2018: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2019: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec

The Signpost
30 April 2019


Admin statistics
Action Count
Edits 159629
Edits+Deleted 170611
Pages deleted 3067
Revisions deleted 120
Logs/Events deleted 1
Pages restored 476
Pages protected 2313
Pages unprotected 481
Protections modified 366
Users blocked 1395
Users reblocked 19
Users unblocked 250
User rights modified 21
Users created 5

Contents

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, SlimVirgin. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Jane Haining.
Message added 00:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

KTC (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust - wrong definition[edit]

The lead definition ignores allies of Germany.Xx236 (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Xx236, I'll reply shortly on the talk page. SarahSV (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory lead RfC[edit]

Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Levivich 06:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Could you take a look at this request? I feel this requires a domain expert, which you are. He was blocked for this edit. Due disclosure, I filed AE over original edit (mainly due to plagiarism concerns from a SPS, see User:Icewhiz/Illustration for very long analysis) which closed as ”No action taken (without prejudice to another admin taking action)” for among other reasons ”the matter is too complicated and too much tied to content disputes for me to feel comfortable taking action; AE is beetter suited to relatively straightforward cases of misconduct. Possible plagiarism issues, Yaniv reverted content which contradicts all mainstream scholarship in field (including the outstanding Polish Klucze i Kasa (“Key and Money”), see any academic review or this short summary in Haaretz[1]). A more accurate rendition of the passage in question might read (working on this offline):

extended sourced content with references (mostly) available online, collapsed so not to clutter here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The primary goal of post-war legislation on “abandoned property” was to prevent the return of Jewish property to Jewish hands. The unprecedented rate of extermination of Polish Jews in conjunction with the fact that only Jewish property was officially confiscated by the Nazis suggests “abandoned property” is equivalent to “Jewish property”. The new legislation placed severe limitations not present in pre-war inheritance law which allowed inheritance by second-degree relatives. Only original owners or direct heirs could ask for restitution. Polish officials did not conceal this, the formulators of the law argued that it was necessary to prevent wealth concentration in the hands of “unproductive and parasite factors”.[2] The initial 1945 decrees were superseded by a 1946 law.[3][4] Even if Jews regained de-jure control, when it was occupied by Poles additional lengthy proceedings were required.[5] Filing a claim cost 800 zloty (a bit under a month’s wages), and expenses usually reached 20,000 zloty (20 monthly wages); the majority of Jewish claimants could not afford the process without help.[6] Jewish heirs were often murdered (as many as 1500) when attempting to reclaim property. Many surviving Polish Jews in the USSR were repatriated only after the end of the claims deadline in 1948, and Polish officials blocked return of Jews from DP camps.[7] It is hard to estimate how many Jews got property back, but it was undoubtedly extremely small. [8]

References

  1. ^ Why Are the Poles Amassing Jewish Figurines?, Haaretz, 2014, quote: The book, “Klucze i Kasa” (“Keys and Money”) details the ways in which Poles got rich off Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust – by plundering property that was left behind, charging exorbitant fees for hiding them, and so on. This may be another underlying reason for the Polish perception of Jews as a source of wealth – they literally enriched them. And paradoxically, their guilt feelings over this are being projected onto the Jews.
  2. ^ Weizman, Yechiel. "Unsettled possession: the question of ownership of Jewish sites in Poland after the Holocaust from a local perspective." Jewish Culture and History 18.1 (2017): 34-53.
  3. ^ Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48, Cambridge University Press, Anna Cichopek-Gajraj, page 72
  4. ^ Searching for Justice After the Holocaust: Fulfilling the Terezin Declaration and Immovable Property Restitution, Oxford University Press, page 325
  5. ^ Searching for Justice After the Holocaust: Fulfilling the Terezin Declaration and Immovable Property Restitution, Oxford University Press, page 325
  6. ^ false Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48, Cambridge University Press, Anna Cichopek-Gajraj, page 82
  7. ^ The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust, Palgrave, page 101
  8. ^ Shattered Spaces, Harvard University Press, page 52

I feel Holocaust distortion is a serious issue. Could you please look into this? Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Icewhiz, it seems it was a final-straw block, and I'm afraid I don't have time to do all the reading to catch up on the background. Also, having just edited the Grabowski article, I might be seen as involved. SarahSV (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
He does have a record (much of it running foul of ARBPIA - first as a new editor breaking ECP (a common new editor trap), then IIRC breaking 1RR, and after he was TBANed from ARBPIA breaking the ban a few times (I will note it is hard for an Israeli editor to edit Israel related topics without breaking ARBPIA) - I might have left something out). I am not excusing the record (though some of its is due to the perils of ARBPIA in relation to local (Israeli or Palestinian) editors) - however I am contesting the "straw". Perhaps he should have tempered his language - but what is in History of the Jews in Poland is simply obscene. I won't say it is the worst I have seen - Stawiski - ver was worse and in mainspace for for 7 years since 2011 - defended from multiple challenges by WikiNovices (and written about - Morris S. Whitcup, 2015). If you could weigh in on the merits of his edit summary (even with a comment saying you are involved in the topic area) - that would go a long way.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The material he removed was clearly problematic, but so is calling it "antisemitic vandalism", and when that happens against a backdrop of other contested behaviour, it's likely to attract a block. I'm sorry, I can't add to what has been said already without doing a lot of reading about what preceded it, and I just don't have the time. I'm sorry. SarahSV (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of 2017 albums[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of 2017 albums. Legobot (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk page[edit]

Hi. I have responded on the talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Brave[edit]

An editor identifying as a woman asking for traditional sexist language to be changed? Whatever next?! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Peter: it's almost as if it were ... 2019 or something. SarahSV (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Pesticide related topics[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk page comments[edit]

Just popping by here for a quick note rather than the article talk. Just to be clear, I'm quite serious when I say please propose specific content on the talk page. I've been stuck with a lot of people edit warring that content in and not addressing it on the talk page, so we're left with a situation where the talk page "consensus" is no reason to keep it even though some editors clearly want it. It's possible to deal with that primary source using secondary sources (carefully of course), but it's been difficult to get people to focus on specific content there. It's on my to-do list to reintegrate some things about Hallman, but I've had to sort through a lot already with blanket reverts not addressing various issues. Slow and steady is the better option here, so if you have something specific, please bring it up if I don't get to it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, thanks for the note. I happen to agree about "slow and steady" being a good option. But I have a problem with "[i]t's on my to-do list". If you had created or written most of the article, I'd support you in that stewardship position, but Andrew created it, and he and others have added most of the content.
What's needed is for everyone to put aside their personal opinions and write a neutral summary of the studies that have caused concern. The article needs a "Studies" section to give readers an overview: In 2014, study A said X, followed by responses from supportive and critical secondary sources. And so on. Try to build and rewrite, rather removing things that aren't currently ideal. Or if something is poorly written or misleading, you could write an alternative paragraph on talk, and ask for consensus. People will probably support you if it's well-sourced. SarahSV (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I've run out of time for tonight, so I'll have to tackle the rest about Hallman tomorrow (and there's a bit of background with that study too that's taking a little time), but what you suggest about who created the article, etc. gets into WP:OWN issues. No one gets priority there even for someone like me who does engage in WP:STEWARDSHIP of insect topics. It's just policy that matters, and WP:ONUS is the main policy at play here. We already discussed at previous pages not to include Hallman like that before the fork, so along with being a primary source, there's just too many things weighing against that piece of content to keep it in even as a stopgap. Dealing with editors that kept reverting it in without engaging on the talk page doesn't make an exception to that policy either as you pointed out my many attempts to encourage them to discuss the content. The expectation is to stick with what is agreed upon and build up from there discussing specific disputed content and ways to introduce them into the article.
We have a decent baseline right now that doesn't have major problems as long as the edit warring stops and people stick to the talk page on disputed content to build from there. That's at least my hope so the disruption in the topic finally stops. The question on section headers is better left for the actual talk page, but having a research section more or less does what you are looking for. It gets rid of the tendency to just list studies and instead focuses on the main important findings in the subject and comments about them without the need for a criticism section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

How To Win Arguments And Exhaust People[edit]

Hi Slim V, long time no see. I'm not sure why, but I thought you might find this article interesting. I decided I'd drop by and share a quotation with you. I trust you are well, and am so glad to see you have not been entirely exhausted to the point of leaving, as so many of us (understandably) have. Best, petrarchan47คุ 21:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages
How To Win Arguments And Exhaust People
Sussman’s main strategy for convincing editors to make the changes his clients want is to cite as many tangentially related rules as possible (he is, after all, a lawyer). When that doesn’t work, though, his refusal to ever back down usually will.
He often replies to nearly every single bit of pushback with walls of text arguing his case. Trying to get through even a fraction of it is exhausting, and because Wikipedia editors are unpaid, there’s little motivation to continue dealing with Sussman’s arguments. So he usually gets his way.
Hi Petrarchan, nice to see your name on my page. I saw the AN about that issue; in fairness to the editor, that article may not have fully reflected what has happened. But I haven't looked into it, so I can't say. The commercial v. volunteer editing problem is fraught with contradiction. SarahSV (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
(driving by...) My take on all of these sorts of folks is strength in numbers. None of us have the time or the energy to take on trolls and COI editors alone. I'm all for the cabal. Also, speaking as a lawyer myself, real lawyers in real courts who wear out the judge get told to STFU, though in more diplomatic terms... though sometimes emphasized with the threat of Rule 11 sanctions... LOL! Montanabw(talk) 16:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Montanabw ~ for the most part, our version of "real judges" operate nothing like in the real world. From what I have observed (but admittedly I am no lawyer and have not been around here much for the past 3 years), they are easily 'overruled' and are subject to, and often cave to, mobs of 'wiki friends' who put the pressure on when one of theirs is in trouble. Also, the behaviour described in the above quotation happens primarily at article talk pages (where the 'judges' rarely tread).
But again, having taken so much time off, I would not be surprised to find that I'm wrong about everything I've just written. For instance, what was considered a prime source for studies 3 years ago is now labeled "predatory" and dismissed, along with the research. I've got some catching up to do... petrarchan47คุ 21:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, You're right. What you are describing is gaslighting. Like I say, what is needed is enough people to confront these trolls, who are relentless. Montanabw(talk) 18:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
My topic ban prevents me from commenting on the note just below, so let me just jump in here (sorry to be so rude) and ask, Montanabw if you feel comfortable expanding on this idea? I'm curious to know how something like this could be organized as a project, something like "Project Integrity" (which may have actually been proposed years ago, but never left the ground AFAIK). How do you envision the structure of this group, or are you hoping something will form organically? I have seen all hell break loose on someone who proposed a similar idea, so I was a bit surprised to see you fearlessly talking about it. petrarchan47คุ 00:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
(Reading my own words below it could be said that I am making accusations. Slim if you see it that way please delete any parts that you believe to be improper.) Gandydancer (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes Montana, I'd agree with terming it "gaslighting". But as for "enough people", thinking back on the Monsanto articles they were picked off one by one and two by two until almost no one was left. Everyone lost the will to attempt change and I for the most part have as well. Just one or two very manipulative editors that politely explain why all of your edits are wrong and need to be deleted and nobody left to back you up produces an extremely biased article. This is glaringly clear at the Decline in insect populations article where some editors who post at the Monsanto articles as well believe that just about any crappy source is fine--sources that they would have not only refused at the Monsanto articles but ones that they would have mocked any editor for even mentioning them. It's all so Trumpian that it makes my skin crawl... Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Burial ground at Millbank Prison.JPG listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Burial ground at Millbank Prison.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --AldNonUcallin?☎ 10:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Protecting our Wikipedia reputation[edit]

I've been following the recent conversation here [1] and I'm concerned that an editor may be able to make such disparaging remarks about another editor and then just walk away without backing them up. I've looked up to you for years, including the times we have been in disagreement, with respect and even admiration for your fairness, good judgement, and knowledge of and willingness to stand by WP policy standards. What can be done to correct the ongoing situation? Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, thank you for those very kind words and for saying something here. I'm upset and unsure what to do. Also, I've come down with an illness in the last couple of days that's causing a bit of pain and fatigue, which isn't helping. Hounding him for years? I mostly try to stay out of his way! I don't recall even reading the GMO ArbCom case, and I had no involvement in it, but now he's saying he proposed the ASPERSIONS ruling because of me? I started reading the workshop a few minutes ago to see whether I'm mentioned anywhere. So far nothing.
I don't know what to suggest about how to correct this. As you know, I'm far from being the only target. It seems that ASPERSIONS applies to everyone but him. It upset me that Black Kite closed the discussion without action, though I'm glad that Lourdes has now said something. SarahSV (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Slim, I stand with Gandy who said it perfectly. You were essentially my mentor in the early days. I hold you as a model editor and have great respect for your work. I wanted to pop in to say that I am so sorry you're feeling sick on top of being attacked in this way. I hope you can rest up, enjoy some tea, and know that the truth will prevail. Others are taking up your case at various talk pages as we speak. Be well, petrarchan47คุ 05:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A bandwagon I am happy to jump on. You were a great mentor when I was a noobie 13 years ago, and it hurts to see such attacks on you. Hang in there, and keep on improving WP. - Donald Albury 13:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree, Sarah is a wonderful editor, and should not be the subject of unfounded attacks, and I would support her insistence that her accuser put up evidence or withdraw all charges with apology. But I would also urge a sense of proportion: she is also a long standing administrator, main author of a dozen FAs, more GAs, large parts of 3 important policies, work at WikiProjects, DYKs, and even more, while the person attacking her is none of these things, was recently blocked, and according to their talk page seems in real danger of yet another block. So I wouldn't worry that Sarah's impressive reputation is in much danger. I would venture to say that most people are quite clear on where the truth lies. --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Totally agree SV is a wonderful editor. King withdrew the attacks, or at least what seemed to be the worst of them. @ SV - thanks so much for helping us achieve NPOV on the decline article, and so sorry it caused this unwelcome drama. I hope you quickly recover from the illness. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, Donald, GRuban and FeydHuxtable, just a brief note to say thank you everyone so much for the support, which is hugely appreciated. SarahSV (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Discrimination against indigenous oral traditions[edit]

Respectfully Sarah, but my edits are based on preserving the actual ORAL histories as told to our people, those of our Ngati Tama Kopiri, Te Arawa, Te Awara O Te Rangi and other hapu that I represent.

When you state "cite references" - you are referring to a colonised version of "learning" that is writing a version of history that is leaving out a VITAL part of our history, an indigenous perspective that is being lost. Many of our kamatua are dying, and with them, the stories, the TRUE stories, that will be forgotten, without their unique lens to share their version of events, from their unique Maori world view.

Many of the references that Wikipedia cite as sources, have been written by conquerors, a colonist view-point, or by some of our people who have been educated by a colonist system... our own educational institutes are still in their infancy and we have only just started to see the doctoral graduates of our own educational programs and they are yet to contribute to academia in terms of a reliable body of work to "cite".

My edits come from hui - many of them from Waitangi tribunals, where we are fighting against the very systemic racist institutes who have NOT allowed our people a voice at the table, nor given us any way to have a voice in the conversation. To be able to share, our stories of what happened. Wikipedia has given our kamatua an opportunity to correct this.

I have searched your records, and shared these with those who ACTUALLY LIVED THEM! How can you deny this? From eye witness accounts of people who where there, or lived on these places and were forcibly removed? How can you say these people are not the descendants to these lands and who do you have the right to say these are NOT Tangata whenua?

Either you are ignorant to the actual wheels of racism, that create barriers to indigenous people, which is exactly what continues to perpetuate the white agenda - or you accept, that there is still much to learn in how indigenous people can play a part in the digital landscape in collecting what is an important and valid part of history.. Otherwise, you, are simply, like the other writers of history, not recording the truth but your version of truth - and it belies the damage and hurt, and often, those most affected by this, are those most vulnerable and unable to contribute, because they can't play "by your rules". I am happy to provide you with my phone number if you wish to discuss this with me further - as my edits represents the opinions of over 35 kamatua, or elders of 1 hapu alone, and over 2500 other iwi members depending on the pages we have collectively edited. Some just don't have access to the internet, or the skills to write such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomprincess (talkcontribs) 21:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not Sarah, but as she's apparently unavailable for (hopefully!) a short while, I'll take the liberty of explaining in her place. She would probably have stated it better, but hopefully she would agree with the essence of my explanation. I gather this is about Sarah's statement on User talk:Freedomprincess#Warning and her reversion of your edits such as this one?
The problem is that Wikipedia can be, and often is, easily edited by anyone, whether by careful and conscientious scholars, or by bored ten year olds trying to make a joke. Because of this, one of our key editing policies is Wikipedia:Verifiability; everything we write in our articles needs to be verifiable, which means a reader should be able to check the references or sources that we provide to tell the difference between accurate information and that put in by error or malice. The content you put in did not have any references of that kind, and needs to. Please follow those links for more details on verifiability and references or sources.
Yes, unfortunately that does mean that we discriminate against oral information that isn't recorded anywhere yet; sorry about that. We can't be the first place that this oral information is recorded, it need to be recorded elsewhere by reliable sources, and only then can we cite it from that recorded form. Follow that link as well to see what we would prefer by reliable sources. Thank you for your contribution, and apologies for the difficulty. --GRuban (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Freedomprincess, thanks for leaving a comment here. The edit of yours that caught my attention was this one, and when I noticed other issues in your history, I left the note on your talk page. I take your point about the difficulty of incorporating oral history into Wikipedia. As GRuban says, one of our key content policies is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which means that readers should be able to check everything we add to articles for themselves. I've briefly looked around for oral-history projects on Wikipedia for you, but I could only find the Women of Rock Oral History Project. We do have WikiProject Countering systemic bias; you could leave a note on their talk page. Our internal newspaper, The Signpost, published a report about their work in 2014; see WikiProject report.
I know that Montanabw has been active in trying to expand the range of sources we use about women. I'm also pinging Carwil, who I believe is interested in oral history and may have some ideas for you. Freedomprincess, is any of the material you want to add available in printed sources or recorded interviews? SarahSV (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/history/inglorious-dastards-rangiaowhia-raid-and-the-great-war-for-new-zealand/ There are several other NZ Encyclopedia's that references the massacre. My account was written from the of the grandsons who had the story told to him by his grandfather. Perhaps it could have been written better...for you, it is a record of history, for us, it is the memoirs of an atrocity.

Verified by a white-world view and it completely disqualifies indigenous people and regulates our knowledge and method of participation in PRESERVING AND WRITING HISTORY, to merely being the ones being told to shut up and read what the white people have to say.....Brown people are sick of being told to shut up and listen to white people and to fit into your framework.

A source, for an indigenous person, should be an elder, a Kamatua. We have a process that this goes through to be recognised as a Kamatua. Our people are communicative and sharing of knowledge in this way, is what indigeneity, and Indigenous Identity and practicing that, authentically is about. I don't accept, that, in the 21ST we still have such a white bias, and so overtly practised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomprincess (talkcontribs) 09:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Freedomprincess, just as an FYI, I know it doesn't fix anything, but Sarah's not unsympathetic to your concern. She actively works in related issues such as gender bias. I would say most of the editors I've worked with here on WP see the issue of systemic historical bias as a major concern and many of us work hard on just these kinds of issues. --valereee (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, while I appreciate your comments, truly - it's a bit like telling Rosa Parks, "Rosa, we're not unsympathetic and we see you sitting there, but it's not our bus...." It's an unfortunate reality, that we (non-white, non-conforming), are still asking for equality and equal and fair representation in all spaces. This is one of the barriers as to why our people don't even try to participate in this space because we are not welcome, not unless we are willing to conform to a white ideal and a white identity.
As it would be difficult for a man to understand the world view of a woman, so it is for a non-indigenous person who has not experienced the impact of colonisation to truly appreciate how disempowering this entire process is. Wikipedia is proliferating a white version of history, and doesn't even realise it!
Freedomprincess, sorry, I didn't mean to make the situation worse, I just wanted to let you know Sarah's an ally. We want you to feel welcome, we want you to participate, and we want to do what we can to make that possible. --valereee (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we do realize it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias attempts to address it, within our policies. Also, if you write 4 tildes, ~~~~, after your posts on talk pages like this one, that will sign and date your posts, and make it easier who wrote what when. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
GRuban, this page was the first one I read after reading Sarah's comments - This is only one aspect of my frustration. There seems to be no framework/room to address the tikanga of Indigenous people. Ian Malcom authored a paper on Barriers to Indigenous Student Success in Higher Education, and some of the findings are evidentiary of the same barriers that Wikipedia is reproducing, those being, as reported by Indigenous students:

- not open to accommodating students from other linguistic and cultural - Being questioned as to the appropriateness of their knowledge - Views of white anthropologists were not always correct or appropriate, as compared to the knowledge of the elders - Oral traditions of Indigenous cultures need to be recognised and valued within university in the same way as written, published knowledge. Malcolm, Ian. “Barriers to Indigenous Student Success in Higher Education.” Quality conversations: Proceedings of the 2002 annual … (2002): n. pag. Print. Freedomprincess (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Freedomprincess, you actually have sympathetic ears here, but the problem is that Wikipedia itself is a written medium and thus relies on written sources. Also, no one can tell the difference between a respected indigenous elder and a New Age "culture vulture" other than by reviewing things that have been written down. So it's important in the 21st century for indigenous people to start getting things into written form if they want them to be preserved beyond the local community. Montanabw(talk) 19:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Freedomprincess: There are many place for oral history and indigenous knowledge as sources of information about individuals and events of the past. And yes, it's particularly troubling when most of the compilers of history or tradition have been outsiders with problematic views. What Wikipedia needs, however, is some external record to connect as its reference, and to have that record placed within a system of knowledge. There are several organized ways that oral accounts of historical events can fit that bill. Since I'm not very familiar with Maori/Aoteoroa/New Zealand examples, let me offer some parallels in the US wars against indigenous peoples. Sources like these all meet the standard of verifiability, and are some of the best available sources for documenting events described in them:
  • Coleman, W. S. E (2002). Voices of Wounded Knee. Lincoln, Neb.; London: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-6422-9.
  • Marshall, Joseph; Blackstone Audio, Inc (2013), The day the world ended at Little Bighorn: a Lakota history, ISBN 978-1-4708-8705-6
  • Deloria, Ella; Deloria, Vine (1998). Speaking of Indians. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-6614-8.
So the first threshold for inclusion is being able to find and locate the knowledge. And a second is systematic recording of that knowledge somewhere outside of Wikipedia within an established tradition. And yes, I believe that indigenous traditions are established, often longer-established than their Western counterparts. The nature of Wikipedia is not that we don't cite oral traditions, but that we don't put new knowledge here that hasn't been recorded somewhere else first (that's our rule on no original research).
That said, I noticed there are opinions in the text that you contributed above. These opinions might be entirely justified, but they still need to be attributed to someone, rather than told in the voice of the encyclopedia. You can read about that here: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
It's your choice whether to consider me as an ally or not, but here are some of my views about oral sources on Wikipedia.--Carwil (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mobile country code[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile country code. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Chairman[edit]

Unfortunately, Red Slash is not budging re: Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019. MR? Would you mind doing the honors?

Thanks,... --В²C 21:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

He may reconsider. I think we should give him a bit more time, although you're welcome to go to MR if you prefer. SarahSV (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree about giving him more time, but if he doesn't relent, due to my uh magnetic personality, I think it's best if someone other than me initiates the MR... I was hoping you would. --В²C 22:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Done. See Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 April. SarahSV (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about IPs[edit]

I'm asking you since I know you are an admin with substantial experience.

There's a new IP who I believe is doing good edits. The IP showed up originally at User_talk:59.96.135.31, who I have been giving advice to and having a discussion. They said they had to reboot and now is editing from User_talk:59.89.40.79. I feel confident they are editing in good faith. How is this handled when the same user uses two different IP's but is clearly not a WP:SOCK? Is there a policy with regard to this? It's challenging when it comes to talking with them, since they end up with multiple talk pages, and confusing to them as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi David, it's not a problem if someone has to change IPs if the edits are okay, especially when it's obvious that it's the same person and they've acknowledged it. It does mean splitting discussion between different user talk pages. Perhaps you could discuss the issue on article talk instead, or suggest that they open an account. If you do the latter, please make clear that editing while logged out is fine too. You could direct them to Wikipedia:Why create an account?. SarahSV (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Decline in insect populations[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 21 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Decline in insect populations, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some insect populations have declined dramatically? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Decline in insect populations. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Decline in insect populations), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

People of New Guinea[edit]

Hi. Could you restore the maintenance tags[2] to the article? (Though the inline OR tag at the top should be the full tag.) Or, failing that, at least return it to its pre-edit war state,[3] rather than only leaving out the section that contradicts Epf2018's POV and which he deleted, and leaving in the ones that contradict the other editors? Thanks. — kwami (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Please disregard these requests by Kwamikagami. The body of text in the article is completely sourced from reliable studies. There is no OR. Papuan is a valid ethnographic terms used in the scientific literature, but this user seems to be obsessed with categorizing all groups of the area into some unified "Melanesian" group which lacks specificity. Every study makes a clear distinction between Melanesian populations and Papuan populations. He hasn't provided a reason why there can't be two articles, and has been highly hostile and obtuse in trying to reach a consensus. 99.251.88.76 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Epf, three editors have problems with the article, and two think it's nonsense as it currently stands. Personally, I don't have a problem with a version supported by RS's (as in, sources in the field they're used to support, per WP:RS), but that's a matter for discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work by mere assertions of WP:TRUTH, or unilateral claims that sources support your TRUTH when other editors disagree. — kwami (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I am merely entering what the sources say. It is you and another who seem to have a problem accepting that all the studies distinguish between the groups based on culture, language, geography, history, customs, as well as some genetic differences. There's only two of you. Epf2018 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This isn't the place for this debate. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami and Epf2018: I see the article was recently moved without discussion, so let me know if that needs to be reverted. You have a content, merge and naming dispute, so please keep discussing it on talk, find out what the high-quality sources say, and make sure any edits and moves have consensus. See WP:RM for how to hold a move discussion, and WP:MERGEPROP for how to propose a merge. SarahSV (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay. (Actually, there was discussion. A third editor agreed that the article might be worth keeping at the new name.) And what of either restoring the tags, which per our conventions should not be summarily deleted, or reverting the article to the version from before the dispute? — kwami (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't see the point of restoring an earlier version. I see it was you who started the dispute, so I wonder why you prefer to restore the version to which you objected. As for the tags, before deciding on whether to hold a merge discussion, you and the other editors should decide whether the move needs to be reverted; otherwise you'll just increase confusion. The OR tag wasn't added properly, and the page will survive without it for now. SarahSV (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The point is to not favor one side when you enter into a dispute as an independent admin. Because of that, standard procedure is to revert to prior to the dispute. Epf made quite a few changes since then, and those get to stay, despite his repeated deletion of tags because he speaks TRUTH (which AFAIK is against WP policy) and even though Dianaa noted that section as a content fork. And there are two editors who object to epf's conflation of genetics and language, which is what that section is about. Yes, I (and others) object to the original version, but freezing it per one editor's preference is not appropriate. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Standard procedure is to protect the version we find (see m:The Wrong Version), so long as there are no issues such as BLP violations. Instead of spending time arguing with me, please go to talk and hash out the issues. The page has been protected for three days, not all of eternity. SarahSV (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Under attack[edit]

Hi, if you have time can you protect my talk page . Thanks Denisarona (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Many thanks, Denisarona (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, and you're very welcome. SarahSV (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Do you (personally) believe that it's possible for a normal, garden-variety reliable source to be both primary and independent? Not in some niggling technical way, like "I suppose that all independent-secondary sources are technically primary sources for their publication dates", but really, truly a primary source for the main facts that the source conveys, and really, truly independent of the subject matter? I'm getting the impression that you don't – that sources are either secondary-independent or primary-not-independent, and either no other categories exists, or they're so rare that it's pointless to talk about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of different source types, and for years I've considered writing an essay, sourced to academic sources, so maybe I should try to do that. But I find these discussions completely draining, because they matter so much to Wikipedia, and for there to be no agreement on the definition of simple English words after all these years is depressing. So I'd prefer to discuss this with you when I feel less fraught about it.
Having said that, a brief answer is no, primary sources aren't independent in any way that matters to us. If I witness a car accident, my statement is a primary source. You might want to argue that it's more independent than a statement from the spouse of the driver, who also witnessed it but has a dog in the fight. And that distinction will matter in court, and people can argue about the self-interest of the spouse versus the fact that he was closer to the action and saw more. And a university could be viewed as an independent primary source to support information about its professors. I've seen academics describe themselves as X, and you go to the university site and find they're not quite X.
But these distinctions introduce a lot of confusion, and what's the gain? What we need are secondary sources, not primary sources, to build the article's scaffolding. Using the word "independent" is fine so long as you define it as "secondary", but letting it float free has caused this chaos. Now it means whatever anyone wants it to mean, and when they go to one of your essays for enlightenment, they encounter "A is NOT B, and B is only sometimes C, and never forget that D can never be E or F," so they carry on using whatever definitions lead to keep or delete when they want it. SarahSV (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's talk another time. I don't want the ideas to "float free", and I also want us to get it right – not in the sense that we'll arrive at One True™ Definition for the whole world, in which we tell the legal scholars that they're wrong about the non-existence of tertiary sources and the genealogy scholars that they're wrong when they say that Grandma's stories about her own childhood are secondary sources, but in the sense that we'll have something that works for us, across all the kinds of articles that we need to write.
I agree with you that people tend to look around until they find a phrase that can be twisted to support whatever their preference already was. I think we're stuck with that, though. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Second-wave feminism in the United States[edit]

Hi. Whether or not Second-wave feminism has problems with a huge problem with the over representation of the United States, I am unclear why Second-wave feminism in the United States was changed to a redirect. There clearly is enough information on the topic to warrant a separate article like Second-wave feminism in Germany. It also preserves the information about United States feminism in case of a major rewrite to better address the nature of the second-wave feminism would remove lots of this information as undue weight about one country. --LauraHale (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Laura, it's because you copied it over from the main article. It was effectively a move without an RM. SarahSV (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Classification of your articles[edit]

Hi there, Sarah. I see that like many of us, you have not been spending much time on upgrading the classifications of the articles you have created over the years. As you've recently become more active on Women in Red, I though it might be useful to spend an hour or two reviewing them all. As I suspected, a considerable number deserved a higher classification. Furthermore, I noticed that quite a number of your B articles are very close to GA. If you have time and the inclination, you might like to review them yourself and consider making that extra step. I should perhaps point out that I relied mainly on ORES for guidance although I did not follow its recommendations in all cases. Feel free to make any revisions of your own. Keep up the good work and let me know if I can be of any further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for doing that, Ipigott. I'll certainly give it some thought. SarahSV (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Animal rights movement looks like a good candidate. All it really needs is a more informative lead.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
If I decide to bring anything else to GA, there are a few I have in mind that are close. I mostly develop articles rather than start them. Thanks again. SarahSV (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
That sounds promising. Are you aware of WP:Women in Green? It's devoted specifically to upgrading existing articles to GA. If any of those you hope to work on are biographies of women, you might also bring them to the attention of WiG. Maybe you would also like to become a member of the project yourself?--Ipigott (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

POV edits to Chairman[edit]

I'm not going to template you, but you have to know that your image edits to chairman are controversial at the best of times, but downright WP:POINTY during the RM that you are trying to influence. Your edits are introducing a POV and WEIGHT problems, and I suggest we let this go and leave the article more stable. There's already a discussion about potential canvassing on your part to the RM, and edit warring to insert images for your POV will not look well for your side. -- Netoholic @ 20:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, that article is deeply sexist: the title, language, age of sources, choice of imagery, repetition of "chairman". It needs to be updated in every way. Now you're removing images of women. The only one you'll allow to remain is a very low-quality image, where the source refers to the woman as "chairman" (permalink). SarahSV (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
"Now you're removing images of women." Oh come on. When you make a POINT to add a half-dozen pictures of women dis proportionally to the article, you don't get to play like I am some sort of sexist. Just on a basic illustrative level, we don't need so many pictures of -any- people behind desks to communicate the topic. You're intent is clear, get consensus on talk. I'd be happy to discuss the right "mix" of a few images, but best to save that for after the RM closes, but right now you're going overboard on this. -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The version you removed contained four images of women (one or several) from diverse backgrounds, including the lead image from 2018, and three of men (one or several), also from diverse backgrounds. The version you restored contains two of men, including the lead image of an older American white man from 1973, and one very low quality image of women, where the source refers to the chair as "chairman".
Do you see how it disturbs you when male is no longer the default? To you, that shift feels like someone has added "a half-dozen pictures of women disproportionally to the article". SarahSV (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The Ervin lead image has been there since 2016. As for the rest like "default" - give me a break. I explained my rationale and provided a suggested way forward. I'm not going to play along with your sexist accusations toward me when you don't even know a thing about me. -- Netoholic @ 21:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis lines[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis lines. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust[edit]

Please comment on the lead. The problem exists since many years.Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look again. SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Netoholic[edit]

I noticed that you recently warned this user about making insinuations. Any thoughts about these remarks? When I suggested they focus on content, not the contributor, this was their response. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, one option is to open an WP:AE request. The articles he's causing a problem on are covered by the "gender-related" discretionary sanctions, and he received an alert on 4 May from TonyBallioni. Alternatively, any uninvolved admin can sanction him under the DS without an AE request. SarahSV (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, thanks for the ping. I gave that alert to major players in the recent Jesswade saga. I’m not familiar enough with the context there to take AE action at this time personally, so filing an AE report so other uninvolved admins can look at it would be the best way forward if someone thinks that discretionary sanctions need enforced. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. Sangdeboeuf, if the situation ends up at AE, please ping me. In fairness to Netoholic, I'll ping him now so that he knows he's being discussed. SarahSV (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Masculinism/masculism[edit]

Since I know you're following along with the updates I'm making - can you please unprotect the redirect at Masculinism? It was locked in 2006, but I want to move the material I split out from masculism to it and de-conflate the terms. -- Netoholic @ 05:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please post on article talk so that others can join in. You need consensus for any split. You can request unprotection at WP:RfPP. I can't edit the articles and use the tools. SarahSV (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Masculism#scope changes - Already way ahead of you. -- Netoholic @ 05:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)