User talk:Spencer/Archive 27

Active discussions

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is   Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science.   Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to   Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Award

Awarded to Spencer for participating in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Vandal report

Hi. Regarding my report at AIV (User:Bigbaby23), I do think it's obvious vandalism when someone continually ignores the policies you're citing while typing nothing but personal attacks in their edit summaries. This person has a history of being blocked. Can you reconsider? -- James26 (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

AIV is a noticeboard for relatively straightforward spam/vandalism. When personal attacks and all that extra jazz starts getting added to the mix, AN/I is a more appropriate venue for that type of disruptive editing, imo (especially for editors with 700+ edits). SpencerT♦C 08:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Season's Greetings!

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Spencer

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

  The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Happy New Year, Spencer!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Requesting rollback

The user Helmoony is mass-removing "Tunisian arabic" in articles that was in place since several months. after the debate in Tunisia portal in september, an admin finally decided to grant the mention of Tunisian arabic for the names of people and places. Things were so settled since then, but the user Helmoony is recently removing all the mentions, could you please do something about it ? Thank you.Zangouang (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zangouang, I'm not familiar with this area, so the best place to bring this up would be WP:ANI. You also mention "an admin" in your request; perhaps that would be a better person to involve in this situation? All the best, SpencerT♦C 17:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Out of their block...

and back to disruptive editing. You dealt with them before, could you do so again? Much appreciated. Hope this finds you well btw, you were very helpful a few years ago when I was new here. Robvanvee 17:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You blocked them last month for vandalism, looks like they are starting up again. See Talk:2011 Christchurch earthquake and Erie Canal. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

User:2001:558:6007:71:1D73:C89:31B2:941 ‎

Thanks for blocking this IP. However, they are continuing to edit as 2607:fb90:43:660a:d7a8:3dc6:d8bd:6bda, and in the past have come up as 2001:558:6007:71:1d73:c89:31b2:941, 2607:fb90:41:819e:2d0e:1d0f:e2e1:9b77, etc. All show the same editing patterns, at the same articles. I hadn't reported them before, as some of their edits (such as at List of deaths in rock and roll) are in my opinion a net positive, and none of their edits can be described as outright vandalism. The main problem at Freddy Cannon and Dave Bartholomew, in particular, has been in them changing birth dates at BLPs, and failing to discuss their edits on talk pages - and failing to provide edit summaries - despite many requests to do so. What do you think is the best way forward on this? Clearly, if one address is blocked they will simply pop up at another one. I'm reluctant to suggest semi-protection of the articles in which they are interested, but is that the only way forward? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If multiple IPs are at play, a rangeblock - if appropriate - may be helpful; I have little expertise in that area. Semi-protection might be appropriate for key pages as well. Other than that, linking to AIV as block evasion may be helpful. Best, SpencerT♦C 20:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Thank you for supporting my RfA

  Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Self-identified sock of one of your block of User:Dogyabusive

See Kityabusive [1] Meters (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

  Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for considering my request for intervention here. Apologies, I should have given a clearer explanation that although a content dispute was the starting point, the user's disruption regarding my attempts to note the dispute on the article page had become the issue.

I had ceased trying to excise the disputed content from the article itself, had continued noting my concerns on the talk page and noted on the article the existence of the dispute, the specific disputed element and the sources which can be seen to be misrepresented or are under suspicion of being so. I would be content at this stage for the article to remain in its current state as long as the tags are back in place to indicate to readers the existence of the content dispute, its specifics and the talk page discussion on the matter. The IP user immediately removed the tags, was warned this was disruptive, then repeated the removal: here and here. My request for intervention ultimately regarded this removal of the tags rather than the content dispute itself.

(To note in addition, I had previously warned the user three times for disruptive editing: altering a quotation from a citation to fit their POV (acknowledged by them, claiming error) then twice making edits which (some at least of) the claimed sources demonstrably did not in fact support. With the subsequent tag removals, this does not indicate a constructive pattern.)

Even if blocking is not appropriate here, would you agree that the removal by the IP of the tags on the article page, indicating there is a dispute, is inappropriate? In such case could you engage with the IP to have the tags reinstated (i.e. rv of this edit) as I would expect immediate reversion by them were I to do so? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent anything. Mutt Lunker violated the three edit rule and continuously deleted the information I posted after mischaracterizing it as inaccurate. Everything I posted was found in the sources I posted, contrary to Mutt Lunker's claims, my edits ARE supported by the sources I cited. I did address his concerns on the talk page before removing the maintenance templates. I contend that Mutt Lunker's use of this report is a form of disruptive behavior and bullying. His repeated mischaracterizations and removals of my edits are as well. Thankyou for hearing me out. Matt, it is your edits and not mine which are disruptive and which have violated wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
IP, per above, this is no longer (just) a content dispute: it is about your behaviour in what should be an attempt to resolve this dispute. An edit which demonstrably misrepresented a quote, even if in fact down to competence issues rather than mendacity, can reasonably be believed to be vandalism, hence its legitimate reversion. Two subsequent edits by you appeared to be of a similar nature but you will notice I then stopped removing them, particularly in the light of your refusal, as bold editor, to follow the cycle of WP:BRD. Progress would be made by allowing me to indicate my dispute of your edits on the article page without templates being blanked and by addressing those tags that request quotations from the sources which you claim to support your case but refuse to provide. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This is clearly something that would be best handled at WP:ANI. I declined at AIV, as the wrong venue for it. I believe that ANI is the best place for these concerns. Best, SpencerT♦C 21:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for considering this, though I am somewhat puzzled that you regard AIV as not the correct venue since misrepresenation of sources and removal of maintenance templates all have standard Twinkle vandalism warning templates. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
AIV is for "obvious vandalism". Generally speaking, "misrepresenation of sources" and "removal of maintenance templates" can be vandalism, but are generally much more complicated. These - while being vandalism with warning templates - are better suited for ANI rather than AIV, imo, especially if they are being disputed by the user being reported. SpencerT♦C 22:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

A vandal you blocked

Hi. A few days ago, you blocked 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:15B1:5308:295:DDC3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I think 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:4C81:0:1C30:9CD8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same vandal. He's hitting The Driftless Area with the same disruptive edits (edit by the original vandal, edit by this new IP). It might be worth considering a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm not technically skilled enough to perform range blocks, so you should bring this up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, where there should be someone who can. Best, SpencerT♦C 03:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

Hi Spencer,

This IP: (talk · contribs · WHOIS), seems to be a sock of Sweetkushman (talk · contribs), who you recently just blocked. Thnaks! Okeam (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Emero River

You have created Emero River in 2007 and it is still a disaster.Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

Return to the user page of "Spencer/Archive 27".