Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:26, 22 April 2020

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

PainMan

I sympathise with your argument at AE and I don't want to see sanctions on an established editor who does little harm and lot of good. The original issue though is edit-warring. That's now compounded by tirades like the one at User talk:Johnuniq #PainMan situation and the subsequent one when they edited an archive to add a further rant.

I can't read those without worrying that they are just going to plough ahead without being willing to take advice about how to avoid trouble. Without any concessions from PainMan, the optics are all wrong for taking no action. If you have any sway with them, can you do anything to get some sort of recognition of the concerns and some sort of assurance that they will take steps not to cross lines going forward? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel your pain, man. EEng 23:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, that doesn't seem to be an issue for AE though. Also, can you find me another country that has its prime minister article not at "Prime Minister of XXX" but at their own internal language? Sir Joseph 00:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Unfortunately for your reasoning, there is an issue currently at AE. I didn't come here to be cross-examined by you, but our article Taoiseach states "Taoiseach is the official title of the head of government in both English and Irish". If you're interested in words that have come into the English language from Irish over the years you can consult List of English words of Irish origin. I could also suggest " Pale" and the Dáil (which has acquired an anglicised plural when used in English). The consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles #Use of Taoiseach looks pretty clear. If you disagree, I suggest that you take up your argument there, rather than with me. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, firstly, this is at AE because someone brought it to AE, not that it belongs at AE, all one has to do is close with no action. Secondly, Taoiseach isn't at "List of words of Irish origin." Thank you for pointing me to that MOS, which doesn't make sense since every foreign word can be redirected, yet we don't do that for other foreign ministers of other countries. I'm not taking up any argument with you so no need to get snippy. All I said was that this was no violation of a TBAN and to expand a TBAN merely because someone brought an AE action is wrong. To sanction someone for adding "Prime Minister" after Taoiseach is ludicrous. Do you really think most English speaking people know that the Taoiseach is the PM of Ireland? Sir Joseph 00:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I won't close the AE as "no action" as things stand at present, because I have no confidence that we won't be back here again in another month's time if I were to do that. I know that Taoiseach isn't at "List of words of Irish origin.", but neither are Pale or Dáil, although we use all of them regularly in English (well I do anyway, and I only speak from myself, not the rest of the English-speaking world). I'm glad you're not arguing with me, but I have to say it just doesn't give that appearance. Hence the snippyness. I just try to uphold our policies and the relevant consensus without getting involved in taking sides. I came here to solicit help from Levivich to try to persuade PainMan to "throw us a bone", so that we don't have to sanction him. I'm sorry if my appearance here has been misunderstood. --RexxS (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, You seem to be missing the point people are making. Any recent disturbance isn't an AE action because the edits aren't in the TBAN area. If someone finds the edits troublesome, then they should go to ANEW or 3RR, and they can do so in another month as well, but the current edits are out of scope for AE.

Also, keep in mind that while you may use Pale or Dáil regularly, could that be because you live in the UK? (unless you mean pale as in "white?") Most English speakers don't live in the UK (or Ireland) and have no idea what Taoiseach (or Dáil) means. Sir Joseph 01:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the note, RexxS. I don't have any sway but I'll post a message on his talk page in a couple of hours. I agree those diffs are problematic. This is a situation where the "bill of indictment" does not list the "crimes"; the AE report lists one set of diffs, but the problematic diffs are a separate set of diffs, and I think that's what's giving rise to sharply different views of the case. Also, I think there's been some honest miscommunication here because this editor is a mobile editor and may not receive notifications, even of posts to their user talk page (I can attest to missing notification of user talk page posts on mobile, it's unreliable). I noticed that before the AE in February, they hadn't edited their own talk page in seven years. I looked at their xtools and saw that they've made more edits in the last four months than in the prior seven years, and have almost no edits to project space, and very few talk page edits at all. This editor, despite the age of their account, may be totally unaware of DS, AE, noticeboards in general, etc. None of that excuses incivility or edit warring, of course, but it does provide an AGF explanation for not participating at AE and then editing the AE archive. So I'm happy to post something on his talk page in a little bit, but I'm not sure if he'll see it. But it's definitely worth a shot. Cheers, Levivich  03:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you for the note you left, User:Levivich. I very much appreciate it. I hope I'm not screwing up the formatting my posting this where it is. Some of the posting etiquette has always been mysterious to me. I realize if I'd engaged sooner things would been better.

The mobile app is in a pitiable state, that's true. But it's perfectly usable for minor edits. Anything more than a couple lines of texts and I have to grab the laptop. Since 99% of my edits are minor, it's ok. The only annoying part is that it doesn't always show the edit without multiple refreshes. I really wish someone would give it a refresh. It sorely needs it.

I'm an idiot. I know very well how controversial anything surrounding the Troubles - not to mention Anglo-Irish history/relations in general. So I should have been more sensitive to that. So, as I said before, I should have taken that into account.

I'll stay out of the Troubles articles for the indefinite future even if the TB is lifted.

Thanks again. I hope you're holding up well in the Madness.

PainMan (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, PainMan! Glad it's over with now. Hope you're holding up well in this madness, as well–looking forward to this being over with, too! Levivich  03:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 20:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs

Saw your statement over at ANRFC while I was dropping by recently. And I just thought I'd let you know that checking the contribs of a dynamic IP is not that complicated. In most cases this can be done by a suffixing the address with the number of significant bits using CIDR notation, for example 108.30.194.37/24. The mediawiki software supports checks on ranges as wide as /16 for IPV4 addresses and /32 for IPV6 addresses. For clarity most IPs these days, likely including yours, are dynamically allocated, it's just a question of network settings as to how quickly they will hop as to whether it's minutes or months, with the main exception being large businesses/organizations more details

Going from general to specific, you are engaging with a Verizon user at 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (there are many online tools available to help calculate ranges). This IP range is shared by many users within a small region and therefore a little busy, but it actually isn't that hard to pick apart contribs if you know what you are looking for as user behavior always offers the chance for analysis. In this case given that you are primarily curious about user talk page posts. The search contributions offers the ability to narrow by namespace, once this is done the result is this and it's fairly evident that all or nearly all recent posts are made by the same person. You could also broaden the range just to be sure. Be advised, this kind of analysis really only helps when someone is not deliberately seeking to obscure their actions, if that's the case they will actively switch between differrent networks they have access to which may be provided by different ISPs, the geolocate function might give you some indication for the amateurs so long as it is used with caution as there are many reasons it can be off by large margins, but the really determined ones will use both open and secure proxies along with VPNs and unblocked TOR exit nodes and it will be necessary to use behavior alone to make the connection.

If you have other questions feel free to ask, I had to change the sig due to MOS:COLOR. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Spec, that's extremely helpful! I was just about to go find somebody to ask this exact question–you've read my mind. Bummer about the sig; I recently had to change mine, too. I like your new one as well, though. I admit the whole "spectrum" motif is cool for an IP editor. I look forward to meeting your friends, Bandwidth and Handshake ;-) Levivich  04:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Most sanctionable article possible

Per the GS/DS discussion, I'm trying to come up with an article topic that hits as many sanctions topics as possible. I'm thinking...

• A person of South Asian descent who was born into a caste (GS/Caste) - bonus points for working India-Pakistan conflicts (DS/ARBIP) into it
• Who then moved to the United States and got into politics (DS/AP2) with strong opinions on gun control (DS/Gun Control)
• Briefly joined WWE (GS/PW)
• Member the Church of Scientology (DS/Scientology)
• Started their own cryptocurrency (GS/Crypto) which was backed by e-cigs (DS/e-cigarettes)
• And is currently over the age of 100 (DS/Longevity)

Maybe I should just make bingo cards out of the DS/GS topics one of these days. creffett (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Picks up covid and tries chloroquine (Pseudoscience) based on Trump's (Genetically modified organism) recommendation. EEng 19:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• The real white whale is the "OmniSanction", which would be the infobox of a hypothetical BLP that covered all GS/DS areas. Some ideas:
  • Born in Kashmir and/or active in Kashmiri politics should work for DS/IP
  • Left Prem Rawat to join a Falun Gong sect on Senkaku Islands
  • Married a WWE wrestler in a Church of Scientology ceremony, but was excommunicated after advocating "safe" acupuncture-induced abortions
  • A political scientist who has written about The Troubles, PIA, etc. (is that too easy of a way out?)
  • What would this biography be named? General San Shun? Levivich  19:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

    Don't forget that infoboxes themselves are subject to their own sanctions! creffett (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

    • Went to the UK to fight in The Troubles, but while there visited Shakespeare's grave and decided that he wasn't the real deal. Then got an abortion because they knew that they couldn't give their child a Waldorf education (Also, we seriously had a case about Waldorf education?? Talk about LAME) CaptainEek ⚓ 19:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

      I prefer Statler education, myself creffett (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

      • He then goes on a trip to Israel and then suffers from Jerusalem Syndrome and becomes a member of the Hilltop Youth. Sir Joseph 00:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

        Am I the only one who is perpetually mixing up ARBIP and ARBPIA? Couldn't we have picked some other letter set? Maybe we'll have discretionary sanctions on beer, call it ARBIPA, and everything will implode. creffett (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

        Creffett, yep, and if I wanted to make a stink I would complain about the order and say it's not far that Israel is after even though it's alphabetically first. I think it's because ARBCOM did the India-Pakistan first, which is my hunch but I don't know if that is surprising or just the way things are. Then again, we are up to ARBPIA 4 I think. Sir Joseph 01:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

        • Who says it's a "he"? Surely this person is a female scientist (WP:ARBGGTF) with an unusually-capitalized name (WP:ARBATC). –dlthewave ☎ 01:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
          • Should I drop a DS notice on this page for all the topics that have been mentioned? Natureium (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

          Empress-General san Shun? Levivich  03:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think the game should be to find an actual article ticking the largest number of boxes. I'll start: Noam Chomsky. EEng 03:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  I see your Chomsky and raise you Chelsea Manning. There's got to be a technical way to figure out which article is under the most DS, like by tracking template transclusions or something. Levivich  03:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Good move. EEng 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Depends - are we looking for the article which is currently under the most sanctions, or the one which could be placed under the most sanctions? I spent some time mucking around with the categories and templates involved, I think you're on the right track, but let's make sure we're all playing by the same rules here. creffett (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Could be placed, for sure. EEng 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  I wanted to say that your best bet would be a biography (probably BLP) of someone from South Asia (India-Pakistan, caste, one or two others), but I realized that I'm being a little myopic - US politics will easily hit as many sanctions. creffett (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Even more sanctionable than Manning's article is the article about Julian Assange himself. What we're looking for is someone who gets themselves involved in like every high-profile, ultra-complicated controversy they can find; basically, the real-world version of Levivich  17:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  I was thinking Assange as well. But really, when you think it over, I'd like to see someone argue that Trump isn't probably the all-time editing clusterfuck magnet. EEng 22:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  My favorite Onion article on Noam: "FBI Agent Still Tasked With Following Noam Chomsky Around Prepares For Another Day In Local Panera"...the Onion really hit the nail on the head there, Noam now works at the same University I do (which is kinda funny cus we are...not very prestigious) and we do indeed have a Panera right on campus that Noam Chomsky does in fact eat at. His classes are attended mostly by old folks who just want a chance to argue with him :P CaptainEek ⚓ 03:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's sad, but I got about 2/3 way through still thinking that was real. That reminds me -- I've been wondering, are stalkers working from home now? EEng 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Just add that someone was smoking an e-cig while playing video games on their cell phone, eating GMO popcorn and watching a Trump rally on their smart tv, right in the middle of a bombing by . Scared citizens were running out of their homes with AR15s, tryig to stop unidentified immigrants from crossing their borders, when lo and behold, thousands of women came marching down the street wearing pink hats, chanting vitamins are good for you. Not far down the street, a chiropractor had his table setup next to an accupuncturist that was renting space under an awning. And on that note, I'm calling it a night. _Talk 📧 02:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration preliminary statement exceeding word limit

Hi, Levivich. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mottainai. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-enwikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I requested an extension in my statement. Levivich  15:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat related, the edits the Ip made were revdeled, not oversighted. They consisted of some standard rude language no personal info or the like. I think it was an unrelated LTA trying to bait Hijiri, or some other old enemy. Moneytrees🌴 16:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees, thanks for the info! Levivich  19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Fun game you can play at home

1. Find a company that's reported to be price gouging during the pandemic
2. Add the content to their article
3. See how long it takes until a new account improves your edit

Can anyone beat 19h39m? Levivich  19:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

please look at the evidence before repeating a bogus claim

I have Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists bookmarked and regularly look at it. So do others. If some of us are also in the Article Rescue Squadron then it doesn't matter. Have all of us not participated in plenty of list article discussions before which were not tagged for Rescue assistance? Did we all participate in list article discussions of list on that list earlier that week? I don't want to waste time sorting through things. If there is a bot to check for all "list of" articles that ever went to AFD and how many each of us has participated in, then check those to see what a smaller percentage of them were flagged for Rescue, then so be it. Otherwise please don't continue to spread that false claim against us. Some of us have even taken lists articles about to be deleted and transwikied them to the list wikia/fandom at https://list.fandom.com/Special:Contributions/Dream_Focus Dream Focus 19:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Dream Focus, what "false claim"? Surely you don't deny that you and Hijiri have been fighting for years? Levivich  19:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your statement that: "Following up on the article List of fictional counties discussed above, when it was AFD'd in March 2020, 7&6 listed it at ARS , which would not be unusual, except it was listed on the 7th day, after Hijiri and several ARS members had already gone 10 rounds in the AFD. Andrew D. had !voted in an earlier AFD of the article, but Dream Focus, Lightburst, and 7&6 have never edited that article, and it wasn't listed at ARS (until 7&6 listed it). The AFD was a subject of an ANI thread. Levivich  19:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)". Dream Focus 19:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Dream Focus, which parts of that statement are false? Levivich  19:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the part? EEng 20:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Damn. Savage. Hype man (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

creffett (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

For those following along at home, DF describes the above exchange as ... I was unable to reason with him on his talk page ... Levivich  03:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Let’s clear the air

I found your Burma shave template and text unnecessarily insulting and inflammatory. You removed good sources in Kylie Minogue and re-added bad sources. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, I'm all about clearing the air. Sorry you didn't like the burma shave; it was intended to make you (and everyone else) laugh, not to be insulting.

I did not re-add bad sources–that is just patently untrue. I have never added any source to that article, ever. I've only made two edits to that article. And saying I "removed good sources" is technically true but completely insincere. As someone as long in the tooth as you undoubtedly knows, "removing good sources" in and of itself is not a good or bad thing, it all depends on where you remove them from.

I'm all about discussing edits and being open to feedback about my edits, but in this instance, you're full of it. You're only complaining about my edits to Kylie Minogue because you didn't like the burma-shave. OK – sorry you didn't like it – but accusing me of removing good sources and adding bad sources is not an acceptable way to express your displeasure. Next time, try jeering, yelling "you suck", or throwing a tomato. But don't malign my competence as a mainspace editor because you don't like a joke I made.

Do you, in sincerity, believe that this edit I made was not an improvement to the article? You sincerely believe that the way it was before, Kylie Ann Minogue, AO, OBE (/mɪˈnoʊɡ/; born 28 May 1968) ... is how we should start our FA about one of the most famous singers alive? Obviously not, so stop spinning this as "removing good sources and re-adding bad sources" because neither of those is true. Levivich  22:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I’m complaining about two thing: 1. Your Burma shave text wasn’t funny and not appropriate in the circumstances. Thank you for your apology. And 2. you had good sources, but you chose to violate BLP and add in a tabloid source instead of a reliable source, violating the WP:DOB BLP policy. You cannot ask me if I’m “sincere” right after telling me I’m “full of it”.

Of course, you miss the point. Instead of just undoing the other editor's changes, which attempted to fix the unreliable sourcing, you could have checked their reliable sources and added the most reliable one. Because in fact that edit with multiple reliable sources, whilst not great, is far better than using a tabloid source.

You want to be careful saying who’s full of it. It doesn’t seem you are at all conducive to feedback. I have been very careful not to insult you or make personal remarks about your character, what a pity you cannot do the same. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, one more time, in bold all caps: I DID NOT ADD A SOURCE. I'm not sure why you repeated this a third time, maybe this time we'll get on the same page about that. I did not violate BLP with either of my aforementioned edits to that page. You really are "full of it", meaning you are repeatedly accusing me of things that are plainly not true. This is not what I call "clearing the air". Levivich  22:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but you kept in only an unreliable source and removed all the reliable sources. Causing a BLP violation. Telling me I’m full of shit is fairly personal. Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay to be clear, why did you add a tabloid source and PURPOSEFULLY violate out BLP policy?! PackMecEng (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think he was splitting hairs. Technically he didn’t add it, but deliberately chose to keep the unreliable source and removed the reliable sources. Either way, it violated BLP, which he refuses to acknowledge or understand. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Folks, Levivich is right, even if saying "you're full of it" does skirt the line (so, please refrain) — the lead does not have citations currently. That part of the lead does not need to be made an exception to that, the information is already sourced in the body. Please feel free to add another citation to it, if you find the current one to be insufficient. El_C 23:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There’s no dispute there, the problem is that what he ultimately did was not migrate the refs to the body. Instead he did a straight undo of the edit with the reliable references. This (I guess potentially inadvertently) leading to a BLP violation. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, thanks. Honest-to-goodness sincere question: what is the acceptable way to say "everything you say is demonstrably false and I think you're doing it intentionally because you've done it multiple times after I've shown it to be demonstrably false", but with less words? "Full of shit" is my go-to, and "full of it" was my more-civil alternative, so what phrase(s) would you suggest that doesn't skirt the line? Levivich  23:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

For example, I wish to express the following: when Chris says that I deliberately chose to keep the unreliable source by not editing that part of the page when I edited a different part of the page, I wish to say that he is ___________. That is such ________ to suggest that an editor is "choosing" to retain the rest of the page when they make an edit. And from someone with as much as experience as he has, he knows that's not true. He's just being a total _______ by pretending like there is some genuine BLP policy violation or other problem worth discussing on the article talk page, at ANI, and now here, with this one edit I made. I've seen Chris engage in this sort of __________ with other people since his return, and I'm tried of all the ____________ taking up valuable editor time, especially now that it's taking up mine. Seriously, what am I supposed to fill those blanks with? "disruptive"? "not a good look"? "assuming bad faith"? I am no good at wikispeaking. Levivich  23:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, you do not say that at all. You continue to AGF that there is a communication breakdown somewhere in conversation with them. If you do feel there is tendentious editing, including but not limited to aspersions, please report it in the proper forum. Chris.sherlock, that is not a BLP violation per se., but if you do have a BLP concern, please attend to it as you see fit. El_C 23:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

El_C not currently, I was raising concerns about problems that occurred before someone other than Levivich added a reliable reference. That was the sole point of my message on his talk page - to ensure he doesn’t keep unreliable references and remove reliable references when it comes to the BLP. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, just fixing it by migrating some of those citations to the body with an edit summary to that effect would have been enough, I think. If further such violations instances you consider to be violations are observed, then you should escalate with a polite note. Not a big deal, regardless. El_C 23:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, what do you mean "further such violations"? That was not a violation of BLP. Neither of my two edits to Kylie Minogue violated BLP. That accusation is utter and complete nonsense. Let me be clear: anytime I see something like Kylie Ann Minogue, AO, OBE (/mɪˈnoʊɡ/; born 28 May 1968) in the lead of an article, I will take appropriate steps to fix the WP:OVERCITE, because that is the right thing to do, editorially, and in accordance with the general consensus of Misplaced Pages editors, as documented in WP:OVERCITE and WP:LEAD. No way in hell do we have six citations after the DOB in the first sentence of an article and somebody is gonna say that's all right. That's not all right. Including the full DOB in that article was, at all times, meaning for both of all of my two edits, in accordance with WP:V and WP:BLP. There was already a discussion about this: (1) at the article talk page, (2) at BLPN, (3) at ANI, and now (4) here, and God damn it, there was never any consensus that there was ever a BLP violation because of Kylie frickin' Minogue's date of frickin' birth. We have all spent way, way, too much frickin' time on this very, very, trivial frickin' subject. Levivich  23:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck and modified. El_C 23:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, thanks and sorry. This is me right now. Levivich  23:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

El_C you weren’t wrong, by removing the reliable sources he caused the article to be in violation of BLP. Thus he did actually violate BLP. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As the uninvolved admin currently attending to this matter, I deem that edit not have been a BLP violation. But, again, if you still have BLP concerns (which may still be valid, but not the same thing), please migrate as you see fit. El_C 00:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

El_C I don’t know about that. It is a direct violation of WP:DOB to only cite an unreliable source such as a gossip magazine. Levivich may think BLP policy is trivial and unimportant but neither myself nor the WMF hold that view. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, as mentioned on my talk page, the date of birth was not in dispute, so migrating as you see fit would have been enough to resolve anything outstanding. I'm not sure I can explain that any more clearly than that, nor that there's much more to this. El_C 00:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I just reviewed this as well and as far as I can see it wasn't a BLP violation. If you have 6 sources confirming the date of birth, removing 5 of them doesn't suddenly make the date of birth contentious. All that really needed to happen was to replace the poor source with a better source. ~Awilley (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Awilley and El_C Except, of course, when an editor does not realise that there were previous good sources because they were removed leaving only a gossip mag for a source, they remove the unreliable source not knowing there were good sources and doing so under the auspices of WP:BLPREMOVE and then they get taken to WP:AN/I, all because one editor can’t be bothered to use the reliable sources as the undo button is easier to use. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It was more the completely uncivil way he handled the whole situation was the issue. As I say, I was clearing the air. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor, you knucklehead. creffett (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Tagging SPAs

I saw your comment on ANI just now, and I'd like to register a cautious disagreement.

1. It seems this is contentious issue precisely because there is no clear guidance for use. The template itself states Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead doubtless this only represents local consensus, but in the absence of consensus at a higher level which is distinctly lacking here (and if I'm wrong about that I'm sure some talk page watcher will link the relevant discussion shortly) the local consensus should be taken into account. Otherwise WP:ATTP and WP:SPA both seem to be relevant reading material; the template formerly only linked to the second of those two.
2. For my part, I don't see someone removing an SPA tag as a problem if it is placed inline with a user's comment. However if they do that I don't think it would be wrong for someone to add a new separate signed comment in properly indented form immediately below saying USERNAME has made few or no other edits outside this topic area. This may seem formalistic, but it solves two issues. First it respects the author's wishes with regard to the wording of their own paragraph since the note is now below their comment rather than inline with it. Second it compels the user who added the SPA tag to own it by signing a new comment of their own, for an unchallenged designation no signature is fine, but once someone has challenged the designation the comment should be owned by the designator. Since this comment would at that point be separate from the designee's WP:TPO would ensure that it remained (or minimally, that anyone who edit warred to remove it would be blocked).
3. I imagine that if someone added {{Single-purpose account}} to a comment you made and some would even endorse as an accurate descriptor you would remove it. No reason not to afford others the same space.

Disclosure, I have tagged accounts as SPAs and cannot remember any such tags being challenged. I cannot recall ever being tagged so myself; I have had to deal with talk page accusations of sockpuppetry on a handful of occasions when an early edit from a new IP was to an RFC, but in no case was the accusation pursued after a follow up conversation. — Spectrum {{UV}} (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside the Misplaced Pages topic area (verify). The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)