Misplaced Pages

User talk:Spencer

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mutt Lunker (talk | contribs) at 15:19, 7 February 2016 (→User:23.241.194.45: indent, r and suggested way forward to IP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:19, 7 February 2016 by Mutt Lunker (talk | contribs) (→User:23.241.194.45: indent, r and suggested way forward to IP)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is Spencer's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43

Template:Archive box collapsible

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, Spencer 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 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)

User:23.241.194.45

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 23.241.194.45 (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)