Jump to content

Wikipedia:Lists of protected pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nico~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 4 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Administrators have the ability to "protect" pages such that they cannot be edited except by other admins. This ability is only to be used in limited circumstances.

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Protection log

Purpose

This ability is used semi-permanently in some cases:

  • Protecting the Main Page from vandalism.
  • Maintaining the integrity of the copyright and license pages.
  • Maintaining the integrity of past press releases.
  • Protecting certain "system administration" pages.

This ability is also intended to be used temporarily in some cases:

  • Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war", upon request (see below).
  • Protecting a page that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user.
  • Preventing changes to a page while investigating a possible bug.

Admins should not protect pages when they have been involved in the edit war in question (either by actively editing the page or by expressing strong opinions on the talk page). Admin powers are not editor privileges - admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you.

In general, pages should not be left protected for very long, and discussion pages should be left open.

Editing protected pages

Admins should be cautious in editing semi-permanently protected pages, and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In many cases it is appropriate for a sysop to first raise the issue on the relevant talk page, as a non-sysop would have to do.

In cases of temporary page protection, admins should refrain from editing pages while they are protected. They should not continue editing content while people with different points of view who are not admins are unable to do so. There are, however, a few times when admins may cautiously decide to edit such a page:

List of protected pages

If you protect a page, or find a protected page not listed here, please add it to this list. Please also add a short description of ten words or less indicating why you protected it. If you need to say more, discuss on the talk page of the page you protected.

Semi-permanently protected pages

The following automatically generated pages are also usually protected for (system administration) reasons:

Sysop pages semi-permanently protected

  • User:Eloquence/Boilerplate texts - This is a user subpage that has no relevance whatsoever to anyone except me. When I copy & paste from there, I want to be sure that these are my words without checking the history. As such, protection is entirely appropriate, and user subpages of that nature are hardly relevant enough to be listed on Wikipedia:Protected page. —Eloquence. 23:25, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Kingturtle -- I feel that user pages should be protected because it is the one place in wikipedia where one's one expression can be presented in its most pure form. Also, it is to thwart vandals. Kingturtle 17:46, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Temporarily protected pages

  • Kaliningrad - editwar over umlauts and bolding, would you believe. It's another German/Polish edit war Secretlondon 17:44, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • First Kalinigrad is a Russian name. Second Nico is a "known vandal". Look at his history of rediting pages. Second if you want to be fair please return the page to a version not made by me or nico. Third, I didnt see anything wrong with my version of the Page. I just made more refences to the current names got rid of the bold from the former name and Wikified Kalinin.24.2.152.139 17:48, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • 24.2.152.139 is a known vandal. He is also known as User:Kommiec, and "seems dedicated to make sure that any city with a German name must be known only by it's Polish name", to cite RickK. He has been listed on Vandalism in progress numerous times, and now he also vandalized Kaliningrad by changing Königsberg to "Konigsberg" and removing the formatting, although this has been discussed with him before (1). Btw, there does not exist a version "not made by Nico or me", since I just reverted to the previous version after he vandalized the page. Nico 19:29, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Hank Eskin - redirect, another Wik reversion stomping ground. - Hephaestos 21:03, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • And reprotected by Angela following deletion - see talk page for explanation.
  • Gdansk - interwiki link naming edit war - yes its the old Danzig/Gdansk one again... Secretlondon 16:24, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)
  • Richard Neustadt protected by Angela due to an edit war between Wik and Stan Shebs + Lir.
    • Unprotected because it's been a long time since it was protected. Angela 15:35, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • And re-protected because the edit war started up again three minutes after it was unprotected. Angela 17:22, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Different war. This one between Wik and my good self. :) Martin 17:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Michael McKevitt - constantly subjected to POV additions (eg, adding in "stooge") and breaches of copyright by the same anonymous user since 22 November.
  • death camp - protected from Wik's incessant reversions. --Uncle Ed 22:44, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Why don't you say "Lir's incessant reversions"? --Wik 22:46, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
      • Because he discusses his changes. Defend your changes, or the page will stay blocked. --Uncle Ed 22:58, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • I did so before (on Talk:Extermination camp). There is nothing more to say. Lir is just repeating absurd arguments I refuted before (like the 6-1 Google ratio, which is meaningless since the two are not synonyms; by his logic we might as well move the article to "Moon" because "Moon" has much more Google hits than "extermination camp"). --Wik 23:22, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • extermination camp - protected by Ed Poor

Recently unprotected

Most recent at the top.

  • Silesia as requested by User:Nico due to some non-consensual editing Dysprosia 01:51, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This article should stay protected until also user:caius2ga has accepted a compromise here: Talk:Silesia. -- Nico 11:18, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This article should stay protected until also user:Nico accepts a compromise here: Talk:Silesia. Caius2ga 00:05, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, you are actually the only one opposing (well, maybe not opposing, but at least not accepting) John's latest proposal. But fine, we agree. The page should stay protected. Nico 11:28, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • There are my 4 edits entitled (Silesia by Thietmar, state of samo, bishopric of Wroclaw 1000, mass massacres of Poles and Jews) which are not questioned. Nico claims that he reverted only my verions of the intro. May I ask to introduce these 4 edits.Caius2ga 00:03, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected by Daniel Quinlan on 4 December.
  • Alan M. Dershowitz - edit war between Leumi and 195.92.168.172/175. Angela 03:18, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Mirv and Leumi agreed on a compromise and both said they were happy for the page to be unprotected. Angela 00:04, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Patient Zero unprotected by Angela as no reason for the protection had been given on this page and because I feel Montrealais should not have protected this page after he had been involved in editing it. Angela 23:04, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Music of Macedonia to avoid blankings by User:Vergina. S/he was warned to stop and explain motives. Muriel Victoria 12:47, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The protection log suggests this is protected but it isn't. Possibly the protection was lost when TUF-KAT deleted it. Angela 00:49, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Anton Chekhov, Fyodor Dostoevsky
    • No idea who protected. Martin 15:37, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It was Adam Bishop due to a Wik/Lir war. Unprotected by Angela 02:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) on December 1st because they had been protected too long.
  • Mother Teresa. Edit war. Angela 21:57, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected now page has cooled down a bit. Angela 19:00, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Reprotected and unprotected by User:Ed Poor on 1st December.
  • Paul Levesque - reverted and protected due to persistant vandalism, same vandal as with Stephanie McMahon. andy 15:10, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Stephanie McMahon reverted and protected due to persistant vandalism. Secretlondon 23:30, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Little point protecting these. He just vandalises other pages instead. I'd rather these were vandalised than user pages. Angela 15:35, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Sunset High School - preventing reversion war. - Hephaestos 04:48, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Reprotected by RickK, Hephaestos and Angela numerous times after The Cunctator unprotected it order to revert to his own version. Angela 20:45, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • That is simply false. I did not unprotect it in order to revert to my own version. --The Cunctator
      • Well let's see. You unprotected it, and then you reverted to your own version. The only edits you've made to that page for the past three or four days were to revert to your own version ("versions", perhaps? -- Cyan). Is that "simply false" too? - Hephaestos 05:41, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Yup. I unprotected it because I believed it should not be protected. My "own" version was the one in which the VfD tag was gone. I never reverted it to my own version. --The Cunctator 13:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If one regards both the version with no VfD notice and the version with the notice at the bottom as belonging to Cunc, then Hephaestos's second claim is accurate. If one regards the version with the VfD notice at the bottom as an attempt to compromise, then Cunc's assertion is accurate. An Obi-wan said, it is a matter of "a certain point of view". But since Cunc did not attempt to inform people that it was a compromise version (in either the edit summary or talk page), I am inclined to regard all edits made by Cunc on this article as "proper" to him, and therefore Hephaestos's assertion is the one to which I give credit. -- Cyan 14:39, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Seems to have stabilized. - Hephaestos 14:59, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Birmingham - stopping edit war over formatting. The couple involved need to sleep on it. Secretlondon 23:29, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
Unprotected to see if it's calmer today. Secretlondon 19:02, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • Yangôn - I didn't see any reason for it to be protected. It hadn't been edited since October, so I'm assuming it was accidental. Angela 00:47, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Zyklon B
    • as far as I can tell, the edit war ended before the protection -- so this should be unprotected. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • edit war over how to mention "doubts": between Ed Poor, some IP, and Lir. Naturally, I'm bowing out from further edits until page is unblocked. Uncle Ed 16:48, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I was not involved in the edit war, the edit war ended 22 minutes before the protection, when I made a compromise edit which nobody saw any reason to revert. Lirath Q. Pynnor
        • I could be wrong (especially as I find the history a bit hard to follow), but I don't think any of Lir's edits on that page were reversions. Just comparing the different versions without actually reading, it doesn't appear to me that there was an edit war on this article, at the time of protection. (Not that I normally understand edit wars, anyway.) Κσυπ Cyp   17:42, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)unprotected by theresa knott 09:54, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Mount Everest protected by Robert Merkel, due to an edit war between LibertarianAnarchist and Secretlondon.
    • Can this page be unprotected now? I would like to add an image to give it some life. RedWolf 04:37, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • I unprotected Mount Everest. Neither of the arguing parties are active at this moment under their current names. However, we should all monitor the article. Kingturtle 04:43, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I resent the idea that I was an arguing party. I am, of course, active under my current name as I am an administrator. As far as I was concerned I was deleting vandalism. I now know to ignore it if I have to do it more than three times in one day on one article. I resent being seen as as much of a problem user as LibertarianAnarchist.
  • Görlitz. Reversion war. Restored pre-Nico/Wik version and protected. Kosebamse 07:49, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Update: It seems that there is now reason for some cautious optimism, but it would be too early to unprotect (see talk pages of articles and users involved) Kosebamse 15:46, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Although one of the reversion war participants, Wik, has refused to join the discussion there is now agreement on an article text. Unprotecting. Kosebamse 08:30, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Schlesien. Nico and Wik. Again. Angela 03:50, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • There are two versions of that article. One version which is worked out by other users, and tried to make NPOV. And Wik's nationalistic not NPOV version, on which he has insisted and ignored discussion, which leaded to all non-Polish contributors left the article some days ago, and Cordyph left the English wikipedia. Now his silly version is protected? Nico 03:56, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It will be restored to the last edition not edited by either of you. Poor Yorick 04:04, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Update: It seems that there is now reason for some cautious optimism, but it would be too early to unprotect (see talk pages of articles and users involved) Kosebamse 15:46, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As this was a derivative war related to Silesia, I am unprotecting this page as well. Kosebamse 08:30, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Silesia Nico and Wik are back at their silly game. Protected that page and restored version of 4 november. Yawn. Kosebamse 23:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • So, you are protecting a worthless nationalistic version written by a vandal, which nobody other than his two Polish friends agree on? A person who declared that he not was willing to discuss the article, a person who is scaring away other contributors, as sysop Cordyph. See btw Wikipedia:problem users/Wik -- Nico 23:10, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I have restored to the last version before you two restarted your reversion game (don't know why that doesn't show up in the history, but it is the version of 4 November). I did not look into the contents, but if some valid arguments are brought forward for or against a specific version, I'll be happy to ask another sysop to change it. I will not touch the content of the page lest I be accused of taking sides. Kosebamse 23:26, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Update: It seems that there is now reason for some cautious optimism, but it would be too early to unprotect (see talk pages of articles and users involved) Kosebamse 15:46, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Although one of the reversion war participants, Wik, has refused to join the discussion there is now agreement on an article text. Unprotecting. Kosebamse 08:30, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Mecca. Continued vandalism. Requested by RickK. Protected by Angela
  • Freemasonry, protected by Minesweeper due to reversion war with new user.
    • Earlier edit war died down. Article was discussed in IRC and agreements not to revert further made. Angela 09:02, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Mother Teresa - yet again. Protected by user:Secretlondon -- Viajero 15:53, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • was protected as in the middle of an edit war. Alexandros was repeatedly deleting parts of the article without discussion. They are now talking about it. Secretlondon 15:57, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected by Ed Poor. No reason given.
  • 2002 Gujarat violence. Edit war between Wik and Conradx, Angela 01:23, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected by Angela on 10 November after unprotection was requested on the mailing list [1] and Bcorr agreed to mediate. Angela 21:16, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Mother Teresa -- User:Alexandros made repeated major unilateral deletions to article. -- Viajero 22:36, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC) Unprotected because User:Alexandros announced he was leaving the page. -- Viajero 10:38, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • For criticism of Viajero's behaviour in this case (he had previously a long history of participation in debates on the article talk page), see the talk page of this page.
  • Long Crendon to stop a persistent vandal with changing IPs to force his nonsense into the article. andy 16:23, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected by ??
  • Richard Neustadt. Edit war between Lir and Wik. Angela 04:54, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected a few hours later once they started discussing it. Angela 07:41, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
      • Re-protected again due to continuing petty edit war. Little discussion has ensued. -- Minesweeper 23:30, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Unprotected again. Protection seems pointless if it can't stay protected forever as they will both want to revert it the minute it is unprotected anyway. See also [2]. Angela 23:42, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
  • Lower Silesian language -too much page moving going on, people need to sort it out before trying to rename it. Angela
    • Unprotected by Angela on November 6. No longer in dispute.

The following six pages were protected by Angela on October 26th due to an edit war between Kommiec and various others including RickK and InanimateCarbonRod.

  • Ferdinand Porsche - edit war between Wik and Lir. -- Cyan 03:38, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Wik seems to have lost interest. -- Cyan 18:07, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Teschen protected by Angela on request of Ruhrjung following an edit war. Angela 06:50, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected by Angela. Has been protected for 3 days. No discussion has occurred for the last two, so seems no point in continuing protection. Angela 19:59, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)
  • Silesia Seems to have been unprotected now. Kosebamse 05:20, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Protected in order to stop an edit war; I reverted to a version by Ruhrjung, because this version was intended to be a provisional compromise version, that was accepted by combatants from both sides. -- Cordyph 14:19, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • This is not true. I never accepted Ruhrjung's version. --Wik 14:44, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Doesn't matter. User:Wik has declared and showed that he not will make a compromise. Opposite the other users, he is not willing to discuss changes or modify his position, whatever happens. The only thing he is doing is reverting for having fun. He's a vandal, nothing else. Nico 17:47, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Cordyph, I chose a version a bit further back in time. Then I made one attempt to defuse the conflict.
    • Wik & Nico, I'd like to move all your comments about (a) protection; (b) de-opping Cordyph; and (c) the article itself back to talk:Silesia --Uncle Ed 18:37, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


  • Gabriel Fahrenheit
    • Kommiec claims that he and InanimateCarbonRod have come to a compromise over the article. I can't see any evidence of this but will AssumeGoodFaith and unprotect it. It may need to be watched for further edit wars. Angela 02:19, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • Warwickshire - in edit war; temporarily protected overnight for cooldown -- Arwel 09:25, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Silesia - in edit war; temporarily protected for cooldown -- Infrogmation 20:37, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Would someone revert this to the last stable version (Aug 14) please?
    • I don't think that is necessary - see talk page. Angela
    • Unprotecting; probably should be watched for possible further conflicts. Infrogmation 06:24, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Commentary

The protected page system may be changed in the future so that all users can modify them, but modifications won't go through until a certain amount of time has passed (and/or a admin accepts them). This would reduce the requirements for admin intervention for useful things to happen.

See meta:Protected pages considered harmful, meta:edit wars, MeatBall:DelayAction.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lists_of_protected_pages&oldid=1874429"