Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions
Requesting pending changes on User talk:AndyAndyAndyAlbert. (TW) |
|||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
'''Temporary pending changes:''' Persistent [[WP:VAND|vandalism]] – Something uncomfortable added by IPs and new users. Also vandalism. . [[User:AndyAndyAndyAlbert|AndyAndyAndyAlbert]] ([[User talk:AndyAndyAndyAlbert|talk]]) 08:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
'''Temporary pending changes:''' Persistent [[WP:VAND|vandalism]] – Something uncomfortable added by IPs and new users. Also vandalism. . [[User:AndyAndyAndyAlbert|AndyAndyAndyAlbert]] ([[User talk:AndyAndyAndyAlbert|talk]]) 08:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
=== [[Elizabeth Warren]] === |
|||
* {{pagelinks|Elizabeth Warren}} |
|||
'''Temporary Semi-protection:''' After recent political news events, seems to have had a spat of vandalism by IPs, trying to change her name to "Pocahontas" - as a derogatory (and incorrect) term. |
|||
==Current requests for reduction in protection level== |
==Current requests for reduction in protection level== |
||
Revision as of 09:01, 28 November 2017
| Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here. | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection) After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.
Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here | ||
|
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
Current requests for increase in protection level
Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by an IP who has continued to vandalize page the moment the protection was taken down. This page has a history of high levels of IP vandalism, especially from Chicago area (for whatever reason). Please ensure that the last article version prior to revert is not from IP.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Someone is using multiple IP addresses to make single or double edits and keeps making unverifiable changes. — Calvin999 12:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: @Calvin999: Unverifiable? The book exists. [1] @Ymblanter: See my comment, thanks. Samsara 12:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I protected it for three days because the IP hopper does not discuss their edits, but, generally, this is a content dispute, and one needs to finally go at the talk page where the IP, hopefully, will join the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I generally try to keep established editor privilege to a minimum in such cases, i.e. if they did not make an effort to discuss at talk either, then no protection is granted. Do we need to discuss as well? ;) Cheers, Samsara 12:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes the book exists, but it can't be verified without having the book to hand, and I don't have a copy. Also, what makes an unauthorized writer an expert on musical composition? This person is using multiple IP addresses to edit multiple articles so he or she can't be easily blocked. It's happening on several other articles. — Calvin999 14:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: There is a problem with all of the arguments you've made. First of all, you not having a copy of the book is not a meaningful demand. I've probably written articles using many books as sources that you happen to not have at home. All of those are perfectly valid sources. There is no Wikipedia rule that says YOU have to have a copy of the book. I hope you can see that this would be ludicrous. Next, what makes an expert on musical composition? Good question. I suspect the answer is of the, "you are if other people say you are" variety, but I'd be surprised if there were a circle of dance-pop vs. RnB experts who all verify each other. Certainly my musical composition exam did not include a test of my ability to tell dance-pop and RnB apart. So in my projection, it may boil down to "Mr. Smith in his book Foo considers the song to be RnB, while Mrs. Smith in her book Baz considers it to be dance-pop". The fact that musical genre warring is among the most frequent forms of dispute on Wikipedia should give you an idea of how subjective the definition of musical genres can be. Finally,
using multiple IP addresses to edit multiple articles so he or she can't be easily blocked
is not an assertion you will be able to prove, unless the user self-incriminates. Some ISPs will simply assign a new IP address every time a person reconnects. Hence, having a new IP address every few hours can be entirely innocent. Pinging Ymblanter FYI. Samsara 15:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)- There is actually a topic at the talk page which addresses exactly this question, but it is from 2016 and does not mention this book. In any case, this is the responsibility of the editors of the article to go to the talk page and to discuss, otherwise the protection can be upgraded to full protection, which probably nobody wants.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Samsara I'd only expect someone who edits music articles to know, but there is such a big problem around the sourcing of genres and whether the critics are qualified for writing about music. Some songs list maybe five or six genres, half of them being unsourced. I've used books before, but not for genre interpretations. The song is reliably sourced as being a Dance-pop song with elements of New jack swing. You're completely going overboard with what I said and misinterpreting what I said. I said I don't have a copy, I don't. Of course there isn't a rule saying I need to and it is ludicrous, so what a pointless thing to say. I didn't mean that I and only I must be able to verify it. I couldn't find it on Google Books, and I don't know anyone who has it. So that's what I mean by I can't verify it. Adding it because it's in a book, well we could all do that couldn't we. That is my point about verification. Next, what I mean about being qualified is that people who REVIEW music for newspapers, online magazines etc are generally qualified to do so, so we take that as accurate. This is the writer of an unauthorized biography. While I accept there is information about Mariah herself which may be useful and accurate, how useful and accurate is his interpretation of her musical compositions? It is his opinion, and I take the line that his opinion in this circumstance is about as valid as mine, meaning I can't source myself with my opinion, like none of us editors can. You don't need to lecture me about genre warring, I spent most of my time countering it and making sure it doesn't happen by cleaning articles up with genre issues. The source for Dance-pop and hence the author is from America's biggest music magazine and one of the leading editors, so we take that as accurate. And yes I can prove it, because it's clear as anything in my watchlist that the same person is making the same edits on multiple pages of the same topic. But thanks for your input, I'm sure it has been appreciated. — Calvin999 15:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- And I need to challenge you again, as you keep throwing around the term "unauthorised". Most biographies are not authorised, and it is not meaningful if they are. What matters is that they be factually accurate, which has just about nothing to do with being "authorised". Yes, an authorised writer could have better access to source material, but equally, they could be paid to project a certain image that is not truthful, or be deliberately and unwittingly misled by the subject. Moreover, it seems the author has published two biographies of her (not unusual since she is still alive), only the second of which uses the "unauthorised" label in the title. It's unclear to me that we should rely on the first book more simply because it doesn't use that label... Next, just because a person has written a book rather than a newspaper snippet about a new album or single is not a solid argument against their ability to reasonably assign a genre to a song. In fact, a person could be writing for the music section of a newspaper and also be writing books. Samsara 15:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I never even said anything about a first book. You've missed the point of what I said. He is someone writing about her and her life. It is useful for information about her life, but for things about music, such as genres, his opinion is no different to mine. I could say it's pop-rock but I have nothing to back that up with. Billboard is a more reliable source for the genre than his biography is, and that is the line that should be taken. — Calvin999 17:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Or you take it to the talk page and establish a consensus with regards to it. 2A02:C7F:708D:B600:D559:E2E9:B3A:77DB (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- And I need to challenge you again, as you keep throwing around the term "unauthorised". Most biographies are not authorised, and it is not meaningful if they are. What matters is that they be factually accurate, which has just about nothing to do with being "authorised". Yes, an authorised writer could have better access to source material, but equally, they could be paid to project a certain image that is not truthful, or be deliberately and unwittingly misled by the subject. Moreover, it seems the author has published two biographies of her (not unusual since she is still alive), only the second of which uses the "unauthorised" label in the title. It's unclear to me that we should rely on the first book more simply because it doesn't use that label... Next, just because a person has written a book rather than a newspaper snippet about a new album or single is not a solid argument against their ability to reasonably assign a genre to a song. In fact, a person could be writing for the music section of a newspaper and also be writing books. Samsara 15:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Samsara I'd only expect someone who edits music articles to know, but there is such a big problem around the sourcing of genres and whether the critics are qualified for writing about music. Some songs list maybe five or six genres, half of them being unsourced. I've used books before, but not for genre interpretations. The song is reliably sourced as being a Dance-pop song with elements of New jack swing. You're completely going overboard with what I said and misinterpreting what I said. I said I don't have a copy, I don't. Of course there isn't a rule saying I need to and it is ludicrous, so what a pointless thing to say. I didn't mean that I and only I must be able to verify it. I couldn't find it on Google Books, and I don't know anyone who has it. So that's what I mean by I can't verify it. Adding it because it's in a book, well we could all do that couldn't we. That is my point about verification. Next, what I mean about being qualified is that people who REVIEW music for newspapers, online magazines etc are generally qualified to do so, so we take that as accurate. This is the writer of an unauthorized biography. While I accept there is information about Mariah herself which may be useful and accurate, how useful and accurate is his interpretation of her musical compositions? It is his opinion, and I take the line that his opinion in this circumstance is about as valid as mine, meaning I can't source myself with my opinion, like none of us editors can. You don't need to lecture me about genre warring, I spent most of my time countering it and making sure it doesn't happen by cleaning articles up with genre issues. The source for Dance-pop and hence the author is from America's biggest music magazine and one of the leading editors, so we take that as accurate. And yes I can prove it, because it's clear as anything in my watchlist that the same person is making the same edits on multiple pages of the same topic. But thanks for your input, I'm sure it has been appreciated. — Calvin999 15:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is actually a topic at the talk page which addresses exactly this question, but it is from 2016 and does not mention this book. In any case, this is the responsibility of the editors of the article to go to the talk page and to discuss, otherwise the protection can be upgraded to full protection, which probably nobody wants.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: There is a problem with all of the arguments you've made. First of all, you not having a copy of the book is not a meaningful demand. I've probably written articles using many books as sources that you happen to not have at home. All of those are perfectly valid sources. There is no Wikipedia rule that says YOU have to have a copy of the book. I hope you can see that this would be ludicrous. Next, what makes an expert on musical composition? Good question. I suspect the answer is of the, "you are if other people say you are" variety, but I'd be surprised if there were a circle of dance-pop vs. RnB experts who all verify each other. Certainly my musical composition exam did not include a test of my ability to tell dance-pop and RnB apart. So in my projection, it may boil down to "Mr. Smith in his book Foo considers the song to be RnB, while Mrs. Smith in her book Baz considers it to be dance-pop". The fact that musical genre warring is among the most frequent forms of dispute on Wikipedia should give you an idea of how subjective the definition of musical genres can be. Finally,
- Yes the book exists, but it can't be verified without having the book to hand, and I don't have a copy. Also, what makes an unauthorized writer an expert on musical composition? This person is using multiple IP addresses to edit multiple articles so he or she can't be easily blocked. It's happening on several other articles. — Calvin999 14:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I generally try to keep established editor privilege to a minimum in such cases, i.e. if they did not make an effort to discuss at talk either, then no protection is granted. Do we need to discuss as well? ;) Cheers, Samsara 12:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I protected it for three days because the IP hopper does not discuss their edits, but, generally, this is a content dispute, and one needs to finally go at the talk page where the IP, hopefully, will join the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent tampering of the sourced genres. There's no need to keep vandalizing and warring. . — Calvin999 15:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: If you know of genre-based disruption to multiple articles by IPs that you believe to be the same user, could you make the report in aggregate, so we can see the full spectrum of behaviours? It may or may not be possible to get a range block if it's clear that they're just being disruptive for the sake of it. Strictly speaking, WP:AIV or WP:ANI may be better venues, but I'm sure we can deal with the query here if need be. Cheers, Samsara 15:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- You've been told numerous times that because it was hyphenated it musn't be used as it means they (the source) has hyphenated the two as a compound noun, which usually refers to fusion/crossover in music, besides if it's been flat listed surely that isn't a bad thing, I see you do a lot of Rihanna pages and Break it Off's source call it pop-dancehall but if you were going by your own rule you would've changed the info box to say Pop-dancehall not Dancehall · pop. 2A02:C7F:708D:B600:C139:3D1F:FD3:62C6 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- The original source calls TGTBAW "R&B/pop". So if we're being technical about this, both of you are wrong. Samsara 16:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- You yourself are saying "generally", now what you've doing is list two genres separately for a song. A song can't be two separate songs, the hyphenation, even the slash, avoids this problem. You are messing around with sourced information. The critic didn't call it an R&B and a Pop song. He called it a R&B/Pop song, that's different, whether it's hyphenated or not. That shows it's a crossover, which is exactly what you are arguing. So what is your problem? You're the only one saying not to use a hyphen. You don't seem to understand what we use what the source says, not what you think. — Calvin999 17:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- The original source calls TGTBAW "R&B/pop". So if we're being technical about this, both of you are wrong. Samsara 16:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- You've been told numerous times that because it was hyphenated it musn't be used as it means they (the source) has hyphenated the two as a compound noun, which usually refers to fusion/crossover in music, besides if it's been flat listed surely that isn't a bad thing, I see you do a lot of Rihanna pages and Break it Off's source call it pop-dancehall but if you were going by your own rule you would've changed the info box to say Pop-dancehall not Dancehall · pop. 2A02:C7F:708D:B600:C139:3D1F:FD3:62C6 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Home Lander (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since the last protection I'm seeing four IP edits, of which two were helpful and two not; and one unhelpful edit that came from an autoconfirmed user. So I'm not certain that semi-protection is the way to go here. Vanamonde (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. KH-1 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Temporary semi-protection for a few weeks - persistent vandalism mostly regarding gender. . MB298 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lordtobi (✉) 06:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Long-term abuse from Bertrand101, whose MO is with Philippine radio stations. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Persistent vandalism regarding country of birth by IPs that I believe to be the same user. Catherine vbb (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – child actor attracting vandals and Trolls, repeated semi protections did not really help so we should try a longer run under accepted revisions. Denniss (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Temporary semi protection: - per edit dispute.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Something uncomfortable added by IPs and new users. Also vandalism. . AndyAndyAndyAlbert (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Temporary Semi-protection: After recent political news events, seems to have had a spat of vandalism by IPs, trying to change her name to "Pocahontas" - as a derogatory (and incorrect) term.
Current requests for reduction in protection level
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
- To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
- Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
- Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
- If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Remove protection: Both Stars & Stripes and the subject's last employer have confirmed the subject's death. Please feel free to cancel the protection I had requested (which runs out on Wednesday). Connormah was the protecting admin and he indicates he's out of pocket for the time being. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Connormah edited two hours before I wrote this, and has added a death date to the article. I have not investigated whether there were other edit-warring related issues. --joe deckertalk 01:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
- Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among
{{Edit protected}},{{Edit template-protected}},{{Edit extended-protected}}, or{{Edit semi-protected}}to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed. - Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}template should be used. - Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
- If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
- This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
Handled requests
A rolling archive of the last seven days of protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive.