User talk:Spencer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter[edit]

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/82.51.155.9[edit]

Sorry for interrupt, can you please block him/her for three months, he/she added unsourced genre recently, like this. 183.171.168.117 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User has received no warnings. SpencerT♦C 04:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content on the AIV page[edit]

Hello, Spencer. I noticed that a declined report was removed from the user-reported section by a user who is not an admin. Is there a policy on this removal of content? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hoops gza: I assume you are referring to [1]. Generally I would say that's probably not a good idea, but since this was a referral to SPI (and an SPI report was created before this was removed), I'd say in this case it's okay. Especially since the user appears to be pretty experienced (has 21K edits; not saying that edits=experience, but 21K is still a lot). But to directly answer your question, I do not know of any policy related to that. SpencerT♦C 03:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism seems to assume that only admins remove comments. SpencerT♦C 03:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - Hoops gza (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please have a second look[edit]

You marked a report on Parksddkdmxl as stale/declined at AIV. Please have a second look. Not sure "vandalism-only" accounts should be marked as stale. If it was declined, then perhaps it was my fault for not being specific, but I did note it was the "usual vandalism" (on the article, should have specified). The editor then proceeded to vandalize again a few hours later. A casual reviewer of the article wouldn't know but the "fans" of this person (who is involved with the show described in the original vandalized article) like to insert his name into various articles. --NeilN talk to me 04:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue was not with the AIV report but rather with how the user was warned. The report was declined because the user only received a 4im warning after their very first edit, which should be given "for severe or grotesque vandalism only". This definitely does not look like severe or grotesque vandalism. The warning sequence should have started with a level 2 warning ("suitable for intentional nonsense or disruption") and gone up from there. After another administator declined, the user had not edited and the report had been listed on AIV for three hours without any other actions, so that's where I then removed. That said, given the recent edit, I will block. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Best, SpencerT♦C 05:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the initial admin decline. I disagree that I should have started with a level 2 warning as the same vandalism occurs every couple weeks, indicating sock/meat puppetry. Usually it's a 4im and then a block. I will endeavor to point out the history in future reports. --NeilN talk to me 13:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh that past history of similar edits by other accounts was what you meant by "usual history"? Yeah if in future reports you link to previous acciunts making similar edits, that's really helpful. I didn't realize there were other accounts involved. SpencerT♦C 14:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Also I'm not familiar with this case but I'd also suggest SPI or semiprotection if you think that would be helpful in preventing future abuse too. SpencerT♦C 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking about requesting semi-prot but since the disruption only happens every couple weeks and doesn't involve a BLP, decided against it. Thanks for your attention and I will highlight the history in future reports. --NeilN talk to me 15:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]