User talk:Ged UK

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



Re: Weekly Shōnen Jump[edit]

You may want to drop a note to Acalamari, who previously declined a protection request, that you have semi-protected the article. Also, given the disruptive editor's previous tendentiousness (vandalizing the article after being blocked for a month for vandalizing the same article), I'm not sure if a week will be enough. Definitely keep your eye on it. —Farix (t | c) 12:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There were two more vandal edits from two new socks since the first request. I would probably have made the same call at the time, but it was borderline. It's on my watchlist now. I'm pondering longterm pending changes. GedUK  12:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Given the disruption since I declined the initial request, I agree with this protection. @TheFarix: Acalamari 13:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added 3 months of PC now. The semi will also run for a week. GedUK  13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Our friend has returned with two new accounts, just hours after the protection was dropped. [1][2] I'm not sure what the process here is, clearly we have a determined vandal.Does this need another SPI or can we revive the prior one? As you are already familiar with the matter I thought it best to ask you. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You can add them on to the existing SPI if I remember rightly. I don't do them often. I've blocked the two most recent ones, they're clearly socks. GedUK  21:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thanks for the protection change as well.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Me again. Can talk pages be protected as well? [3] Also, [4] is an essential redirect which is now also being attacked. I don't understand how one person can be so pathetic, but it appears they don't intent to stop. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll give the talk page a short protection, I don't really want to protect it for longer. I've protected the redirect for a year. I'll have a look at whether an edit filter can be set up. GedUK  11:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've protected the talk page for 3 days, I'm not comfortable going beyond that as that's in breach of the protection policy really. Longer than that is going to need consensus from somewhere like the admin's noticeboard. I have however move protected the talk page for a year. I've also now updated the move protection on the article to match. Can't really have an edit filter on edits related to one or two articles, so I won't bother even requesting that. GedUK  11:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thanks again. If it starts up again I'll try and put together an AN post with the history.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem. It's possible that a checkuser can identify a narrow IP band so a rangeblock might be effective, but rangeblocks hurt my head. GedUK  11:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete longevity claims[edit]

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've extended it by 6 months. GedUK  11:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

Semiprotection of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.[edit]

I don't think this was necessary. The vandal—who, admittedly, is unusually persistent—has a static IP, and I'd already blocked him seven hours before you protected. The other anonymous edits since the last semi-protection lapsed mostly weren't retained, but they weren't vandalism - I can in fact find only one instance of vandalism not by this IP since early July.

The previous semiprotection was also about eight hours after I'd blocked the only vandal. That was harmless, though, and the current protection isn't for two reasons -

  • The length of that protection happened to coincide with the time I'd blocked for, while this one is two months longer. I'm somewhat concerned that when my block expires in a month, he'll just latch onto some article that I'm not watching instead.
  • The show's new season starts in about a week, and there'll inevitably be a large increase in editing. Yes, there'll be some vandals, but anon edits to this article have generally been productive in the past.

Will you consider lifting protection, or at least shortening it? —Cryptic 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry, I looked on the talk page but didn't check the block log, there wasn't a new block message. I'll take protection off. I shouold probably have just blocked anyway, got that one wrong! Thanks for letting me know. GedUK  11:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]