User talk:SlimVirgin

Admin statistics

Action	Count
Edits	166395
Edits+Deleted	177980
Pages deleted	3279
Revisions deleted	146
Logs/Events deleted	1
Pages restored	479
Pages protected	2386
Pages unprotected	483
Protections modified	376
Users blocked	1417
Users reblocked	20
Users unblocked	251
User rights modified	21
Users created	5

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

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) Template:Z152

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

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

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Quick question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Denola Grey

Hi,

You recently speedily deleted the above named article, which was created by a member of my Wiki community. You deleted the article under WP:A7, and I'm here wondering whether you even bothered to review what you deleted. Because, this article that I'm staring at, made more than enough claim of significance and most definitely cannot and should not be deleted under that criterion. Kindly review your actions. If not, this decision would have to be taken to DRV. Cheers.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, I'll take another look shortly. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Jamie, the issue was the reliance on one interview and the self-published source. There was also www.legit.ng, which didn't alone seem to support notability. But the interview suggests that more RS exist, so I'll undelete. If others disagree, they can take it to AfD. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! I do agree that the article needs heavy improvement. But I just feel the speedy deletion was not justified. The user is new and inexperienced, so I'm trying to make sure he doesn't get discouraged, most especially not through unfair article deletions. Thanks once again for taking a closer look and reverting your decision :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• You're welcome, and thanks for looking out for that user. All the best, SarahSV ^(talk) 22:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Wasting my time

See Philip Morris International: "In response to burgeoning awareness of the harm to health of cigarettes, PMI has declared on its homepage the intention to replace cigarettes with smoke-free products, and to "switch ... adult smokers" to these products as the first phase of a business strategy, as a responsible decision for the benefit of "adult smokers" and the companies share-holders and employees.[5][6][7]" This is junk. The entire article needs to be updated. I can't do that. I don't have the time.

When my time is being wasted I have less time to improve other articles. When an editor is causing too many problems they should be shown the door. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, thanks for the note. I'm not sure what I can do there, but I'll keep an eye on it. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This pizza was baked for four hours. It is, like the tobacco in these products, charred, but most of the carbon has not oxidized and it has not been reduced to ash (see carbonization).

This is an electric smoking system. The current title of the article is nonsensical. The page was moved without gaining consensus. I don't have to tell you who did that.

What does pizza have to do with the article?[1] So many edits made no sense. It appears the editor is confused. QuackGuru (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking system was started by a paid editor in 2017 as iQOS. There is also a history at Heat-not-burn, started by another paid editor in 2016. And then there's Electronic cigarette, started in 2007. Are they not essentially the same thing? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

COI editors destroyed the e-cig page and admins did nothing about it. I will eventually try to fix the mess. Can't you tell the e-cig page is junk?

There is no such thing as a "Electric smoking system". It is a fake name. A heat-not-burn tobacco product usually heats tobacco leaves or a tobacco stick. An e-cig heats up a liquid containing nicotine. See "They are not electronic cigarettes.[8] They can overlap with e-cigarettes such as a combination of an e-cigarette and a heat-not-burn tobacco product, for the use of tobacco or e-liquid.[23]" I had to start a RfC to fix the heat-not-burn tobacco product article.

Most COI editors want to promote a product. But there has been times an undisclosed COI editor wants to add negative content to an article or topic. An undisclosed COI editor could belong to a group that is against tobacco. When an editor accuses me of trying to delete critical content during the RfC I started I got very suspicious. Something is not adding up.

During another RfC I read "Summoned by the bot. this RFC is too intractable and ambitious. I have reviewed this article's stages and walls of texts in the talk pages and it has become clear that certain users here are not disclosing a COI. That should be resolved. It is hard to assume good faith when the entire article is plagued with biased notes criticising the sources and its synthesis."[2]

We may being dealing with an undisclosed COI editor who trying to add bias content. Evidence of a COI editor is an editor who has trouble following policy. Misrepresenting sources and adding misleading content could be sign of a COI editor. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_4#Pipe. They had trouble acknowledging the content failed verification.

They behave similar to another editor who used to argue a lot on the talk page and liked to edit war. Even after they disclose they have a COI they continued to edit the topic area. Look who came to support the COI editor. Another COI editor or possibly an e-cig user?[3] There is a lot of COI editing in this topic area. So far no admin has done anything about it. The only time it stopped is when they gave up or left Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No. The only time it stopped was when you were topic banned from those articles by Arbcom.--TMCk (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please provide your evidence what I did wrong.

You seem to show up once in a while.

I also forgot to mention this topic area has socks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FergusM1970 indeffed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/P_Walford Same editing pattern as FergusM1970. There are more accounts. QuackGuru (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There is also Safety of electronic cigarettes. Those three—Electronic cigarette, Electric smoking system and Safety of electronic cigarettes—should be tightened considerably and should probably be covered on one page. That would be much easier to maintain. Then be very strict about removing editors who are involved with the industry or off-wiki activism; remove all industry sources; and stick closely to MEDRS and the vocabulary used by MEDRS-compliant sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not what this discussion is about. It is about the problematic editing. Electric smoking system is a different topic than Electronic cigarette. Safety of electronic cigarettes was recently tightened and a new subpage was created. The disclosed COI editor is still allowed to edit the topic area. QuackGuru (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as though it's a separate topic; they're similar enough that they could be discussed in one article. But it's up to the editors on those pages, not me. I'm not sure what this discussion is about. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The heat-not-burn product article is too long to be merged. There is a section in the main article about related technologies.

You stated "I'm not sure what this discussion is about." Admins for over 5 years have done nothing about the problematic editing and COI editing. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If anyone that you know has a COI either edits directly or tries to exert inappropriate influence on talk, let me know and I'll probably be willing to have word with them, depending on the context. The articles are all under DS, so COI editing should not be happening. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I presented plenty of evidence above of more than one problematic editor and now you are saying that "let me know and I'll probably be willing to have word with them, depending on the context." I prefer not to repeat myself. Thanks. We're done. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the editors hasn't edited an article in that area since last year, and with the other there's no indication of COI. Also, when you're discussing someone, they should be pinged. If you believe there's a COI problem in general at those articles, please open a COIN. You can do the same if you believe that an editor has an undisclosed COI. See WP:COI#Posting at the conflict of interest noticeboard. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Got it. QuackGuru (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, much appreciated, many thanks! SarahSV ^(talk) 02:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Barrett Watten BLP

Sarah, having now read the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education and done some cursory further research, I have no doubt that both parties most involved in the recent editorial conflicts on this BLP are not neutral parties and should be given no further discretion in curating the page. Both clearly are party to the situation, as on May 15 each shared insider information only known to the public after publication on May 30. I do believe the credible sourced allegations and confirmed investigation merit inclusion, as does the subject’s denial and attempts at disputing the claims. Given the contention, I would like to run any potential edit by you, so as to avoid engaging in the back & forth. Conflictorabuse (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I find it curious that this new editor immediately jumped into the fray at Barrett Watten, and not far on the heels of administrative actions you took related to the article. I was coming here to see if you were aware of the situation and had any observations. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Fred and Sarah, I was alerted to this conflict on Twitter, where multiple accounts linked to the aforementioned “talk” page and addressed some controversy occurring there. I created an account for the purpose of adding a reasonable voice and working toward consensus. Conflictorabuse (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)