Jump to content

Wikipedia:Lists of protected pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthony (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 8 February 2004. 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 protected page
  2. Do not protect a page you have edited
  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 or unprotect on Wikipedia:Protected page
  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.

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

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.


Pages protected due to edit wars or vandalism

7/2/04 , constantly being changed by user conte charles said vassallo, who defaces and changes the page, even though many other users have reverted it back. Ghariexem
  • Something Awful -- lots of vandalism. Temporarily blocked. -- Ams80 23:05, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Since I happen to be registered at SA, I posted to the talk page pointing out that if SA forum is being used to coordinate vandalism of Wikipedia, that would have to be reported to their staff. Waiting to see what comes of that... Pakaran. 01:48, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mav - slugfest between Mav and 168 over each other's action on the DNA page. →Raul654 23:32, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • PS: Anyone willing to moderate over there? Or perhaps just try to get them to drop it?
  • New Imperialism - based on this request "*New Imperialism Lirath Q. Pynnor 17:05, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)" -- I checked the page and it appeared that an edit war had continued through yesterday (with no signs of stopping today, that I could tell). I know this is a contentious page, but decided that nothing in the protection policy allowed me to say "let them fight it out". If someone disagrees, go ahead and revert me. :) Jwrosenzweig 20:54, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Iridology Long series of highly POV reversions by irismeister. Huge rants on the talk pages which I can't make any sense of, misleading edit summaries. Tannin 14:27, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • In lieu of Iridology, Irismeister is now abusing people on their talk pages and here, so check this link before unprotecting please. Cheers, fabiform | talk 18:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Haganah - Danny and Europeen edit war on the status of Haganah's terrorist status. Poor Yorick
  • Nucleic acid - edit war between 168... and Lir. Since I'm the protecting sysop in the other one (DNA), I thought I might as well do this one. -- Cyan 18:55, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected. -- Cyan 18:30, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Reprotected. -- Cyan 05:44, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • DNA - edit war: Lir vs 168..., anon ip, and Wik. I will attempt to mediate. -- Cyan 03:23, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Lir got distracted by the kerfuffle over Socialism, so I just unprotected it. I will reprotect if another edit war breaks out. -- Cyan 18:17, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Reprotected. -- Cyan 19:50, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected to allow contributions. --snoyes 23:33, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Reprotected by 168...(!) following flare-up of edit war. I would have protected the page had I not been pre-empted. -- Cyan 18:36, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Nizkor Project - edit war, protection requested by both participants, chose a random version. Morwen 09:31, Jan 21, 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)
  • Death camp reprotected. Lir/Wik issues. Angela. 02:09, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Can some other sysop than Angela please revert this? (discussion to talk:death 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)
        • That would require that the protection is indeed made without regard to which side's version is being protected, but we both know that it is no coincidence that you protected Lir's version. --Wik 02:37, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
          • Angela has protected your favoured versions on occasion too, Wik. Sysops must necessarilly exercise their best judgement in choosing to protect pages. If you don't want to accept sysop judgement, I suggest that you don't get involved in edit wars. Martin 18:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
              • I've already explained at Conflicts between users that I've protected Wik's version more often than the non-Wik version of a page, so I don't see why he is trying to make this sound like I have something against him. Angela. 04:04, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
                • Is it possible in situations like this that one version be appended to the other when the page is set to protected? In this way, no 'favor' is applied, either deliberately or non, to either version. --Anon

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)
  • User:RickK. Too many vandals attacking the page. It's my User page and nobody else needs to edit it. That's what the Talk page is for. RickK 19:32, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Snoyes, User:Snoyes/boiler.
  • User:Ilyanep + Some Subpages - I'd like to keep my page protected (minus my talk and some publicly editable pages) because, First of all, it's my page, and Second of all, I've had some vandal troubles a while ago on my front page.

Recently unprotected

Most recent at the top.

  • Wikipedia:Administrators - I'm adding this to the temporary category, but I hope that (after proper discussion) this should be permanent. The list of administrators should not be open to edits by any random user. I noticed a random IP address added Chris K, and I checked and he is not an admin. A check of the page history shows that this isn't the first time. --Raul654 03:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with protecting the list, but not the whole page. Maybe the list should be separated to its own page? There was some discussion on the talk page previously where Brion and Martin both complained about the page being protected, so those views need to be taken into account before a decision to move this to the permanent protection category are made. Angela.
    • Unprotected - we already discussed this on wikipedia talk:administrators
  • Race protected by mav following a page protection request by Peak. Reason: Edit war between one anon user and several other Wikipedians. --mav 01:20, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
    • Unprotected by snoyes 01:27, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Anti-Zionism - protected on January 14 by PMelvilleAustin owing to edit war between user:zw, [[use:Adam Carr], and others. msg:protected added today -- Viajero 18:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
    • Unprotected by snoyes 01:27, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • USA PATRIOT Act - edit war, with exciting namecalling dimension. Both participants (User:VeryVerily and User:Darkelf) gently chastised on their respective talk pages. I'm hoping for compromise, will accept collegiality. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:26, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No edit war from my POV. See your talk page, VV seems to share my view. Jor 02:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • After representations from both parties, I've unprotected it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Gdansk. They're still fighting over this. Angela. 06:38, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • There was only one particular vandal who messed it up. All serious contributors, including Wik and Cautious, have accepted the bolding. This page can now be unprotected again, as the vandal has left. -- Nico 15:25, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected to see if they can sort it out without reversions. Angela. 01:01, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for adminship - Lir vs the world. Lir insists on putting users up for de-sysopship. He has reverted numerous attempts by numerous people to remove his complaints. I told him to simmer down on the talk page, and said if he did not, I would protect it and move his complaints to the conflicts between users. While I have not moved them, I have protected it. →Raul654 00:19, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • I urge you to complete your (entirely correct) action by moving the complaints, Raul. Tannin 00:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I cannot see why this was protected, and I cannot see why Lir's edits are being reverted. I have unprotected the page, and hope people will grow up. --Camembert 02:01, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Lir has the right to make a complaint. The Wikipedia community has the right to hear those complaints, and decide (as it has) that they are frivolous and inappropriate to a page that has important work to do. Protection of this important page is not a particularly good way to deal with the problem - but let us be very clear about this, the problem is Lir's behaviour. Tannin 02:29, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Starchild - protected by Jimbo Wales, reason at Talk:Starchild. -- Cyan 05:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Except for Mav's addition of a protection warning, the article and discussion page have been dead for two months. I'm unprotecting. →Raul654 06:44, Jan 30, 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.
    • And unprotected because it's not important enough to stay protected forever. 2 months is long enough. Angela. 01:17, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • The People's Voice - may be a little premature but reverts were becoming pointless... should be able to get somewhere on talk page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:12, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Some talk's being happening on the talk page... try again. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • New Imperialism. Will the parties in this dispute please come to a consensus on Talk:New Imperialism. --snoyes 16:09, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Despite all my effforts on the Talk page, Lir seems impervious to reason. Her long list of names has no place in the opening paragraphs or for that matter anywhere in the article. Yet she presents no supporting argument for doing so. Sheer obstinancy. As far as I am concerned this article can stay protected until Lir leaves. Viajero 16:18, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Despite all my effforts on the Talk page, Viajero seems impervious to reason. Viajero fails to provide any supporting argument for why the article should not list major global figures and wars of the era. Sheer obstinancy. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Unprotected. - snoyes 18:56, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • William Pierce. Protected against 66.2.156.62's Nazi apologistics. RickK 23:08, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected. - snoyes 18:54, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Lower Silesia - edit war between Nico, Caius and others. Angela. 22:04, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected as it been proected too long. Angela. 04:31, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Zürich (a redirect to Zurich) - avoid reversals -- User:Docu
    • Unprotected. I had edited it previously myself. -- User:Docu
  • Population transfer protected by Angela due to the following request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection:
    • There are links on this page to Yale Law School and the Simon Weisenthal Center that User:Zero0000 has removed several times. He characterizes these two sites as "trash websites". Please protect the version marked "14:45, 5 Jan 2004" OneVoice 14:53, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Protected for 10 days and no discussion has occured in this time, so it seems pointless to keep it protected. Angela. 20:58, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Cosmotheism - repeated reverts between Mirv and an anon that seemed to be getting nowhere. Pakaran 02:14, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Kleenex. No reason given for protection. Presumed accidental. Angela. 21:18, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Second Treaty of Thorn - I'm proceeding under the hope that the edit war is dead. It's been a month or so since I protected this page. Jwrosenzweig 00:56, 15 Jan 2004 (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 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=2342155"