Jump to content

Wikipedia:Lists of protected pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hcheney (talk | contribs) at 15:20, 2 May 2004 (removed stale protection on Augusto Pinochet). 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.


Part of the Community Information series


Policy

  1. Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice.
  2. Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over.
  3. Add {{msg:protected}} to the top of the temporarily protected page and make mention of the protection in the edit summary.
  4. List pages you protect on Wikipedia:Protected page; if it is protected due to a conflict, you may want to list all user names/IPs involved in the conflict.
  5. Consider encouraging a resolution between the disputing parties.
  6. Remove {{msg:protected}} from the top of an unprotected page and make mention of the removal in the edit summary.

See Wikipedia:Protection policy for more detailed advice and the purpose of protected pages.

Requests for page protection, Protection log, This page is protected, Maintaining this page, m:Protected pages considered harmful, m:The Wrong Version

Proposed policy changes

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 an 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.

Viewing the source of a protected page

To view the source of e.g. Main Page, use one of the following:

The latter also gives metadata (see m:page metadata) about the last edit. It is an XML file; tags are coded in its source, and plainly shown when rendered by the browser. However, blank lines in the wikisource are shown in the xml-source, but not in the rendering.


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.

Also see Wikipedia:protection log for recent unprotections, which replaces the manual list of recently unprotected pages.

Semi-permanently protected pages (various reasons)

Semi-permanently protected (system administration reasons)

The following pages are automatically generated and are usually protected for system administration reasons:

Semi-permanently protected (user pages)

Pages protected due to edit wars or vandalism

latest at bottom

  • Gdansk - prematurely unprotected, immediate return to revert war between Wik and anon, now reprotected. Controversial portion reverted to current revision of Gdansk/temp, where some have been working to achieve a consensus. Constructive discussion ongoing on talk page. Do not unprotect without reading talk:Gdansk first. Mkweise 23:57, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • On talk page, 4 comments in 3 weeks. Gdansk/temp was similarly quiet. Unprotected. →Raul654 14:43, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • St. Mary's Church, Gdansk, rename and edit warring, plan to leave it protected until the talk page discussion resolves the matter. Jamesday 06:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually a consensus had been achieved on the talk page, and the currently protected version reflects it. There are two dissenters from opposite sides, who have exhausted my patience in the matter. Mkweise 11:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Cosmotheism - Again. Ongoing revert war between Fennec, Texture and anon over placement of links, it looks like. RADICALBENDER 16:44, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Kiev - anon vandalism, trying to redirect it to Kyiv despite discussion on the talk page about that. →Raul654 22:57, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Zviad Gamsakhurdia - revert war between Levzur and ChrisO, protected for 48 hours. -- Seth Ilys 22:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Now listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:ChrisO,_User:Levzur; protection may need to be extended if Levzur resumes reverting while mediation is underway. -- ChrisO 23:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • As I won't be around this evening to unprotect at 48 hours, and I'm opposed to indefinite protections for regular articles, I've unprotected the page. -- Seth Ilys 14:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Zviad Gamsakhurdia - revert war involving Levzur. Protectoin requested by mav. →Raul654 06:09, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
          • The article is currently the subject of a requested arbitration. Given that Levzur has continued reverting even during mediation, I suggest that it remain protected until the committee has given its verdict. -- ChrisO 11:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Sealand - reverted for the last few days, Wik vs. several others. Protected until a compromise wording can be reached for the introduction. silsor 02:48, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Schnorrer - Wik and Cantus revert war. RickK 05:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Peter Lynds - extensive edit war between anonymous users. silsor 01:11, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Late Night with Conan O'Brien - combination of vandalism and edit warring amongst at least five different IPs. The edit history is a mess. -- Hadal 02:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Please protect Nino Burjanadze - it has repeatedly been vandalised by Levzur, who (for no clear reason) keeps deleting alternative transliterations from the article without any explanation. -- ChrisO 07:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Protected. Angela. 19:02, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fallujah, user repeatedely trying to insert anti-Bomis disclaimer. - SimonP 18:46, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Protected. Several sock puppets working together on this one. --Michael Snow 22:10, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)



  • Diana,_Princess_of_Wales - please protect. The 'other side' in the disagreement are just reverting without continuing participation in the talk. I suggest that their next step be the proposal of further amendments applying their approach across the entire article, so that it can be seen what effect this would have. (User 158.152.12.77)
    • Protected. Angela. 12:05, May 2, 2004 (UTC)