Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Lists of protected pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angela (talk | contribs) at 02:33, 6 January 2004 (no - read the policy). 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.

Policy

  1. Do not edit a protected page
  2. Do not protect a page you have edited
  3. List pages you protect or unprotect on Wikipedia:Protected page

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

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Protection log, Wikipedia:This page is protected, Maintaining this 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

  • Death camp - Lir/Wik issues. Angela. 02:09, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Can some other sysop than Angela please revert this? This is blatantly pointless duplication of material that's already on extermination camp. --Wik 02:29, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • The Protection policy states "The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one." Angela. 02:33, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Al Gore - Edit war over whether or not to put all the 'controversial' aspects of the man on a separate page or to summarize and spin-off if and when those topics get too long. Please vote on the talk page to resolve this conflict. --mav 22:29, 3 Jan 2004 (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.
  • protected Feminism due to repeated vandalism by 195.92.168.174 PMA 00:21, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Second Treaty of Thorn - edit war between Nico, Caius2ga, 24.2, Daniel Quinlan, and others. Nico requested page protection in an edit summary. Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Silesia - edit war. - Hephaestos 04:49, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I will ask you to keep this page protected until Wik starts to discuss at the talk page and has accepted a compromise. The current version by John Kenney, based on the original proposal by szopen, is accepted by John, Szopen and me, which forms a majority of the participants in the discussion. Nico 04:52, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • While it seems inevitable to protect this semi-permanently, I would like to ask some sysop to revert this to my last edit. It was previously protected for weeks on Nico's version. It's only fair to use the other side's version this time. --Wik 05:11, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
      • This isn't a democracy. And frankly you have not shown yourself capable of acting in a "fair" manner on that OR other articles. -- Pakaran 05:14, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It was not "my" version. It was the consensus version, actually szopen's version. You didn't participate in the discussion at all. Sorry, your problem. Nico 05:42, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Even more, the Wikipedia oughtn't be alternating between different disputed versions, both protected. We ought to be working to find a consensus. Although I think that's impossible with Caius2ga, who is vandalizing, and so forth. john 05:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Can we have, please, the previous version of the Silesia intro?. Every sentence of the current version by Nico is FALSE and contains some nonsense, what has been discussed in the Talk pages. It also contains a biased info that the Germans were expelled and ignores information that Poles and Jews were expelled AND murdered. I can supply more info for you (if requested) -- Caius2ga 13:04, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It should return to a non-Nico version. I support Caius2ga and Wik. Nico seems to have a fetish for renaming parts of Poland he is known for these things. 24.2.152.139 14:18, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • For those who don't remember, IP 24.2.152.139 aka User:Kommiec is a known vandal "dedicated to make sure that any city with a German name must be known only by it's Polish name", to cite RickK.
    • If it's protected at a version you don't like, that's an incentive to work up a compromise and get some agreement - feel free to use a temp page to draft it. It does no good to say "majority voted in favor" when anybody can scribble on an article; you need everybody to go along. No one is going to get their POV represented exclusively, and accusations of vandalism won't get anyone anywhere. So get to it! Stan 22:26, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Silesia page should return to any non-Nico version, and not necessarily to my version. The main problem now is Nico, and the currently protected is precisily an extremist Nico version, so he have no interest in coming to a compromise. He can keep his version protected forever. -- Caius2ga 03:35, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm neutral about the whole thing, but I'd point out that there have been patriotically-motivated edit wars over Silesia and related articles since before I was promoted (or signed up). Is there any evidence that they will stop now? -- Pakaran 03:37, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No, there is no evidence at all. Don't even think about unprotecting the article. -- Baldhur 10:17, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Recently unprotected

Most recent at the top.

  • USS Truxtun. 216.99.185.50 is trying to insert personal comments into the article and using like edit summaries You will never win this game when he is reverted. Angela. 16:43, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Oops, didn't notice the protection and rearranged things to make USS Truxtun into an index article. The protected page is now USS Truxtun (CGN-35), haven't touched its content tho. Stan 18:47, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there a need to protect this page? It's still a stub and it would be nice if people could add to it. If you check the page history, a slow motion edit war has been occurring on this page for many months. It's on my watchlist so I can revert the anonymous contributor who wants to use this page for personal reminiscence. I'm still hopefull he'll contribute legit content. Samw 18:17, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Ok, unprotected. Angela. 18:42, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Samw 05:35, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Gabriel Fahrenheit - reversion war. - Hephaestos 22:19, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • User Maximus Rex motivated by his nationalism started revert war over citzenship of Fahrenheit. Fahrenheit was born in Danzig as the third generation of German immigrants, work most of his life in Netherlands and when he signed to Royal Society, stated "Fahrenheit, Polonus". Nobody denies his Lower German ethnicity. Why Maximus Rex denies the state allegiance of Fahrenheit to Poland? WolfgangPeters
    • The reason why your additions weren't acceptable are on the relevant talk page, no need to waste space here. How many user names do you have, anyway? Maximus Rex 22:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • This is not an answer and the talk page doesn't bring any as well.
      • WolfgangPeters
    • This is NOT the place to decide who is right or wrong in an edit war. Frankly, such discussion does not improve our confidence that the edit war will not continue after unprotection. May I suggest the article talk page? Pakaran

Unprotected: No disgussion seems to have taken place for a while here G-Man 17:13, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • 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)
          • No discussion since Dec. 11, let's see whether the reversionists have calmed down. Kosebamse 19:18, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Unprotected. No discussion since Dec. 4. Evil saltine 12:43, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Mr-Natural-Health - user is causing all sorts of trouble while blanking any appeals to him to behave himself. I have placed Ed's restrained and moderate appeal that MNH had blanked from his talkpage on the user's page and protected it so that (a) the user cannot just ignore the fact that advice has been given, (b) other users traumatised by dealing with this individual can see that he has already been tackled on it and they are not alone in their experience. Talk page left unprotected. FearÉIREANN 06:07, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Can I just praise this approach as vastly more productive than the approach of protecting the user talk page, which has been used in the past in similar instances. Martin 04:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I guess that would be a lot better! What exactly is the justification for any protection? We know that he's read Ed's comments. -- Toby Bartels 05:10, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • That's a really good question. I can imagine the user being understandibly upset at this, and it's not at all evident why the page needs to still be protected when he's been very quiet the last week or so. Pakaran 06:15, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • Unprotected by Angela. on 21 Dec. I don't see any benefit in this. We have far worse users who are allowed to edit their own user pages. Angela. 00:47, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Nico protected by John Kenney. No reason given.
    • Actually, he gave the reason at my talk page -- Nico 22:33, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Yup, sorry, didn't realize the protocols for it. User:Caius2ga was vandalizing it. john 05:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry. The comment was intended fot the talk page, not for the main user page. -- Caius2ga 03:53, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Gregor Mendel, Apparently because of persistent vandalism. I doubt the wisdom of this particular protection. Fred Bauder 23:21, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected by Angela. as people are editing it anyway. sigh.
  • Warwickshire - was protected for several weeks and there is not much discussion now. Kosebamse 06:40, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • And Golan Heights, edit war between Leumi and Zero0000 with 5 reverts to date about the inclusion of half of a particular sentance. -- Pakaran 03:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I've been accused of being emotionally involved with this page, and am unwatching it. Can someone else mediate? -- Pakaran 03:56, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • As a participant in several of the above conflicts, I would like to request the these pages NOT be unprotected until further notice. We need to have a unified strategy for dealing with Leumi first, otherwise the situation will simply continue as before. -- Viajero 10:06, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I (as an arbitrary decision, and without checking) protected Golan at Leumi's version. I've stated I won't be involved with this page, but I am beginning to think I made the wrong decision there, and would welcome a correction. -- Pakaran 02:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Unprotected the above 5 articles after Zero0000 left a message on my talk page. Consensus on IRC seems to be that they were protected too long. Pakaran 03:42, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Bill Gates - contant reverts over whether or not to include Bill Gate's social security number! Angela. 02:39, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected following agreement on IRC. Angela. 03:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Heroic medicine, since Mr-Natural-Health won't discuss NPOV and insists on gutting the article. RickK 08:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • And Age of Heroic Medicine as a redirect to the above. I'm not going to edit the original article while it is protected. -- Pakaran 08:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Unprotected by Angela. as they have been protected for 6 days and Heroic medicine has just been delisted from VfD and moved to cleanup, which is a bit pointless if no one can edit it. 20:26, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I saw Nico & Caius2ga endlessly reverting Lower Silesia over the name of a river. I picked what appeared to me (in all of my erroneous judgement) to be the better version, & protected the page in hope of a 24-hour cooling off period. Within 10 minutes -- before I had much of a chance to explain my reasons -- Caius2ga started asking me to unprotect the page. :-/ -- llywrch 04:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Caius2ga was changing the name of the river Oder (English name) from "Oder/Odra" (my version) to "Odra" [1] At Talk:Oder River he has now declared: "It's a matter of honour to erase any German names from Polish territories. You can convince, chase away, or ban the current editors, but others will come and change Oder to Odra". -- Nico 05:09, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Time-out is now over. -- llywrch 03:30, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Alternative medicine to avoid the insistent placing of this sentence (Alternative medicine is about alternative methods of treatment that actually work and not kill people like chemo does) in the intro. Guess who... Muriel Victoria 17:37, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected to see how MrNH reacts to the several appeals to reason. Muriel Victoria 08:46, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair - long-term edit war between several contributors. I realize the article is almost empty at this point; if any other admin can figure out how far back to go with a revert you certainly have my blessing. - Hephaestos 15:22, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • 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.

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 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

or

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lists_of_protected_pages&oldid=2095146"