| Revision as of 23:59, 12 October 2015 view sourceCebr1979 (talk | contribs)10,843 edits ←Blanked the page← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:46, 13 October 2015 view source Ritchie333 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators125,311 edits adviceNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == RFPP - related requests == | |||
| Hi - in the future, would you mind placing related RFPP articles, like those OLTL pages, all in one request? The posting instructions show how to do it. It makes it so much easier for us to respond once than to come back and address each one by one. Thanks very much. :-) ]] 22:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :]:No, I won't do that actually. Sorry if that makes it harder for you but, I have done that in the past, and it just makes someone decline them all instead of looking at them one by one.] (]) 22:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::As you wish. Pending changes is working at the article you referenced just as it's intended. You can see the IP edits because you're autoconfirmed, but their edits are not displayed to users who aren't logged in. Anyone can revert them, not just reviewers. These pages just aren't edited heavily enough to justify semi-protection, but since you seem to disagree, I'll allow someone else to respond to the remainder of your requests. ]] 23:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::]: It's not a matter of the pages, it's a matter of ]. The pages are not being edited heavily enough because he knows to do a different block of pages each time... just like he knows that creating an account will just get him indef blocked (], ]) so he now only uses IPs 'cause he knows you guys won't block them all. He's outsmarted wikipedia and you're all (not you specifically but, admins in general because I never seem to get the same one twice) falling for it. Can you see my frustration here? I spend 5+ hours a day fixing this guys nonsense and all I ever get back is "semi-protect for 2 days" or "allow someone who doesn't even watch this show to accept nonsense edits because they don't know any better." ] (]) 23:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'm just picking through a bunch of these soap related protection requests, and I think they're all going to get declined. You can have your opinion on what the protection should be, but we can usually only protect in accordance with the ] which broadly means an inordinate amount of traffic that is vandalism or BLP violations. The main purpose of protection is to stop wasting everyone's time by reverting, which doesn't seem to have happened very much on the articles I've looked at. If there really is a serious problem, you'd be much better off filing a ''single'' complaint at ]. ] ] ] 10:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:46, 13 October 2015
RFPP - related requests
Hi - in the future, would you mind placing related RFPP articles, like those OLTL pages, all in one request? The posting instructions show how to do it. It makes it so much easier for us to respond once than to come back and address each one by one. Thanks very much. :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Krakatoa:No, I won't do that actually. Sorry if that makes it harder for you but, I have done that in the past, and it just makes someone decline them all instead of looking at them one by one.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- As you wish. Pending changes is working at the article you referenced just as it's intended. You can see the IP edits because you're autoconfirmed, but their edits are not displayed to users who aren't logged in. Anyone can revert them, not just reviewers. These pages just aren't edited heavily enough to justify semi-protection, but since you seem to disagree, I'll allow someone else to respond to the remainder of your requests. KrakatoaKatie 23:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Krakatoa: It's not a matter of the pages, it's a matter of one user coming back every single day and doing this all over again. The pages are not being edited heavily enough because he knows to do a different block of pages each time... just like he knows that creating an account will just get him indef blocked (1, 2) so he now only uses IPs 'cause he knows you guys won't block them all. He's outsmarted wikipedia and you're all (not you specifically but, admins in general because I never seem to get the same one twice) falling for it. Can you see my frustration here? I spend 5+ hours a day fixing this guys nonsense and all I ever get back is "semi-protect for 2 days" or "allow someone who doesn't even watch this show to accept nonsense edits because they don't know any better." Cebr1979 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- As you wish. Pending changes is working at the article you referenced just as it's intended. You can see the IP edits because you're autoconfirmed, but their edits are not displayed to users who aren't logged in. Anyone can revert them, not just reviewers. These pages just aren't edited heavily enough to justify semi-protection, but since you seem to disagree, I'll allow someone else to respond to the remainder of your requests. KrakatoaKatie 23:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm just picking through a bunch of these soap related protection requests, and I think they're all going to get declined. You can have your opinion on what the protection should be, but we can usually only protect in accordance with the semi-protection policy which broadly means an inordinate amount of traffic that is vandalism or BLP violations. The main purpose of protection is to stop wasting everyone's time by reverting, which doesn't seem to have happened very much on the articles I've looked at. If there really is a serious problem, you'd be much better off filing a single complaint at ANI. Ritchie333 10:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)