![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Pre-emptive protections are not allowed under policy. You have been requesting extended-confirmed protection for the last few TFAs and their talk pages just after midnight UTC ( 22th, 21th, 20th, 19th, 17th). While your predictions have been right occasionally, with disruption coming after your request, these requests are not appropriate because the community has only endorsed a trial of automatic semi-protection.
As you are hopefully aware, at RfPP every request needs to be responded to, unlike at AIV. When requests are made, administrators assume that they are made due to ongoing disruption, not disruption that is predicted to occur. Time spent reviewing a request for pre-emptive protection would be time better spent reviewing a valid request for protection.
If you want to make a proposal to have all TFAs extended-confirmed protected pre-emptively, you should make that case at the Village Pump, not at RfPP. Sdrqaz ( talk) 01:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, users should typically be warned and vandalize past a final (i.e. Level 4) warning prior to reporting them at AIV. There were multiple editors with reports you made as "vandalism after final warning" in which it didn't appear that they had received any warnings. ( [1], [2], [3]). If these appeared elsewhere on a range or are block evasion, please indicate as such and ideally link to those IPs/accounts. Best, Spencer T• C 01:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you blanked my talk page with the reason as WP:DENY. I'm not familiar with this policy; but could you elaborate on why you did that? I'm not angry, just kinda confused. Thanks - 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 ( talkpage) 20:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Pre-emptive protections are not allowed under policy. You have been requesting extended-confirmed protection for the last few TFAs and their talk pages just after midnight UTC ( 22th, 21th, 20th, 19th, 17th). While your predictions have been right occasionally, with disruption coming after your request, these requests are not appropriate because the community has only endorsed a trial of automatic semi-protection.
As you are hopefully aware, at RfPP every request needs to be responded to, unlike at AIV. When requests are made, administrators assume that they are made due to ongoing disruption, not disruption that is predicted to occur. Time spent reviewing a request for pre-emptive protection would be time better spent reviewing a valid request for protection.
If you want to make a proposal to have all TFAs extended-confirmed protected pre-emptively, you should make that case at the Village Pump, not at RfPP. Sdrqaz ( talk) 01:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, users should typically be warned and vandalize past a final (i.e. Level 4) warning prior to reporting them at AIV. There were multiple editors with reports you made as "vandalism after final warning" in which it didn't appear that they had received any warnings. ( [1], [2], [3]). If these appeared elsewhere on a range or are block evasion, please indicate as such and ideally link to those IPs/accounts. Best, Spencer T• C 01:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you blanked my talk page with the reason as WP:DENY. I'm not familiar with this policy; but could you elaborate on why you did that? I'm not angry, just kinda confused. Thanks - 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 ( talkpage) 20:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)