User talk:SlimVirgin/March 2019

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Evad37
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg There'sNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Evad37 • Galobtter
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ritchie333



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg There'sNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg There'sNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news
 * The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
 * Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

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).
 *  has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
 *  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
 * Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

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

You've got mail!
KTC (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust - wrong definition
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
Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory. Thank you for your input. Leviv&thinsp;ich 06:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Request
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 ). A more accurate rendition of the passage in question might read (working on this offline):

"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”. The initial 1945 decrees were superseded by a 1946 law. Even if Jews regained de-jure control, when it was occupied by Poles additional lengthy proceedings were required. 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. 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. It is hard to estimate how many Jews got property back, but it was undoubtedly extremely small."

I feel Holocaust distortion is a serious issue. Could you please look into this? Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, 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
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
Hi. I have responded on the talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
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
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)
 * it's almost as if it were ... 2019 or something. SarahSV (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Pesticide related topics
Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk page comments
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)
 * , 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
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
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,   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   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...   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , 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, 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.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   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)