|
|
I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
(from User:Mindspillage/userpages)
|
Intent of this page[edit]This page is intended to be an archive of the requests placed at User:Lar/Liberal_Semi from a given time period. For more information please see that page.
Period archived:
- from about 1 June 2009 through about 1 July 2009.
Here are the articles so far. They are categorized into protected and rejected (pending review ones would not be archived).
Protected during June 2009[edit]Ken Loach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) unsupported report of his death by philfromleeds (talk · contribs). Reverted by me a bare hour later. William Avery (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done. لennavecia 18:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Sol Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2 x 5 minutes in vandalised state. [1] (first edit by Magicmarble (talk · contribs) and this anon. In fact user Magicmarble managed to clock up ten vandalisms, mostly of this kind on this article before being blocked. William Avery (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done by User:Law. 3 months. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Roger Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [2] in place for 13 days. William Avery (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done, 3 months. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Rashard Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over an hour. Yes, it's just childish vandalism, but this is a high-profile page, since Lewis is playing in the NBA Finals right now, and this sort of nonsense shouldn't be tolerated. Zagalejo^^^ 04:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done. 3 months, no previous protection. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to reject this one. The history shows a great deal of productive IP editing. لennavecia 04:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you and a few other editors add it to their watchlists, you can remove the protection. The main reason I bring these articles here is because I don't think enough people are watching them. Zagalejo^^^ 04:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't do vandal fighting. I'm not sure Jenna does either. This article is a good argument for Flagged Revisions, then... productive edits from IPs AND vandalism from IPs... neither protection nor unprotection is ideal. ++Lar: t/c 11:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why did you set it for 3 months when it has never been protected before? Shouldn't you start off with say, a week or two, then a month, before jumping to a full quarter? Especially in light of positive IP contributions. –xenotalk 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Admins have discretion, and 3 months is within the protection policy. If you wish to debate further, see the talk, please. ++Lar: t/c 05:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Jeph Jacques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Long history of vandalism saying he is dead, most recently this (lasted 40 minutes 'till I got to it). This happened a while ago as a result of this. Marginally notable; he just runs a popular website. Request indef semi. — Jake Wartenberg 02:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I did a quick history scan... a lot of vandalism that was reverted almost instantly. Not currently qualified with just one vandalism of any significant duration given. (please see the top of this page for the process we use here). No previous protection would mean just 3 short months rather than a year. If you have additional diffs please supply. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- [3] (reverted instantly) [4] (reverted an hour later) [5] (20 mins) [6] (50 min) [7] (24 hrs) [8] (2 hrs) [9] (3 hrs) [10] (5 hrs). There are many more. This problem reaches far back. Please see the external link I provided, too. — Jake Wartenberg 03:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done by Seddon for three months. — Jake Wartenberg 03:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Peaches Geldof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This edit [11] lasted for 16 minutes. [12] for 90 minutes, and [13] for 15 minutes. –Megaboz (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Already fully move protected, left that in place. Last edit prot was more than a year ago, go with 3 months. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Chad Ochocinco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Just off semi-protection, IPs back changing the names in the article. Enigmamsg 04:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- A lot going on here. Edits like [14] and [15] are clearly vandalism, and thus qualify this article. But a number of other edits are implementing an edit war about whether to call the player by his older or newer name. Since the edit war is between an IP and a named user, protection has the effect of making the IP lose. For this reason, I ask for a second opinion. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done - Given the previous vandalism history, once of which is recent, I have acted in favour of protection, but despite previous protection history, I have only protected for 3 months on this occasion.--VS talk 07:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
J. J. Redick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This was up for over three hours, and there's lots of other vandalism in the page's history. Zagalejo^^^ 05:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done - 3 months.--VS talk 07:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Haystak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Can someone else cast their eye on this please - two edits, this one of two or 3 days and this one of 2.5 or so hours. Cheers.--VS talk 10:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- No previous protection, protected for 3 months. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Rejected during June 2009[edit]None.
|
