Jump to content

Wikipedia:Unprotected page

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sannse (talk | contribs) at 11:28, 16 March 2004 (+ protection notice from Protected page re User:Bird). 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 used in limited circumstances. This page lists pages which were protected but have recently been unprotected.

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: Wikipedia:Protected page: recently protected pages

David Icke - User:68.35.40.141 has made dozens of POV edits over the last two weeks, many of which are factually incorrect and/or wholly irrelevant (his last edit added the minute of Icke's birth). This user may very well be the banned User:Khranus. -Sean 05:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Version: 05:19, 13 Feb 2004 -- Viajero 08:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
unprotected. Kingturtle 18:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Desmond Seah. A newbie and his sock puppet posting nonsense to Wikipedia and refusing to stop doing it. RickK
  • Talk:Nick Griffin. Another Wik vs. Anthony revert war. RickK 03:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • RickK was also involved in the edit war. Anthony DiPierro 03:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Not at all. My only contribution was to rever to a stable version. RickK 03:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • A stable version? It only existed for 2 minutes. That's not at all stable. Anthony DiPierro 03:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Anthony's need to have the year of birth in both the first two paragraphs was bizarre, to say the least. Secretlondon 23:25, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Bill Clinton protected by Angela following this request:
  • Bill Clinton - edit war between ChrisDJackson and Jiang over which image to use. Let it cool down. Kingturtle 00:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Removed protection. Kingturtle 07:30, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I have since participated in editing and discussing. So I must recuse myself from future protections. Please keep an eye on it. I am not asking anyone to protect it. Just watch it, and proceed how you see fit. Kingturtle 03:50, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Hate speech - another revert war involving 24.45.99.191; protected by request of Texture. -- Infrogmation 21:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Kleenex. No reason given for protection. Presumed accidental. Angela. 21:18, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Cosmotheism - repeated reverts between Mirv and an anon that seemed to be getting nowhere. Pakaran 02:14, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Cosmotheism - The edit war has just spilt over as vandalism onto other pages (see Monism) and it doesn't do anyone any good to leave the page protected. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Cosmotheism protected due to constant reverts over whether or not to include a link to Creativity Movement. Angela. 22:30, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC) Has been unprotected by someone for an unknown time Tannin 13:22, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Zürich (a redirect to Zurich) - avoid reversals -- User:Docu
    • Unprotected. I had edited it previously myself. -- User:Docu
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • Unprotected after cool-down period. [1] silsor 18:45, Feb 16, 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)


  • 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)
  • Gdansk - they're at it again, something like twenty edits in half an hour regarding the name of the city. Pakaran. 04:21, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • There have been 7 edits today, and there was certainly not an edit war, only a minor disagreement. Noone has reverted the page. Nico 04:35, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry - I saw the changes to the first sentence and was worried that something bad was happening. Unlocked now. Pakaran. 04:42, 9 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)
Hephaestos, Wik is in the right on this one. Levzur has an unfortunate habit of making POV changes and deletions - see Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Levzur for the background. Maveric149 had to protect the article in question last month and it's disappointing to see that Levzur has started deleting things as soon as the protection was listed. Whatever else Wik might have done, he's done the right thing here. Please revert the article to his last edit and leave it locked. -- ChrisO 23:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have seen Levzur's POV expressed in his writings; however the way to counter that is a neutral re-write, not a revert. - Hephæstos|§ 03:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that Levzur has deleted existing NPOV material (contributed by myself) which has already been rewritten any number of times. He won't discuss it other than to assert that it's "misinformation" and simply won't accept having that material in the article. This has already been thrashed out at great length on the Talk page over the past 2 months and Levzur's partisan deletions have previously been reverted by other editors and sysops (as well as being complained about by most of those users). I repeat, Wik has done the right thing in this case - if he hadn't reverted it, I or someone else would have. You should look at this in the light of the editing history of that article, not Wik's own editing history. -- ChrisO 08:31, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've removed protection, but am leaving this discussion for the time being. I don't expect it to be unprotected long (although I won't protect it again myself any time soon). - Hephæstos|§ 08:50, 10 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)
  • 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)
  • 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
  • Agnosticism protected by Danny.
    • Unprotected by Angela on request of Banno as Jack has left now, so I'm guessing the edit war is over. Angela. 23:04, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • East Germany - as per request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, another Wik editwar theatre. The version protected is Wik's, not the one that Infrogmation reverted to and which he described as "pre-edit war", so I suggest somebody else look at it and perhaps reinstate that version (which would certainly in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy). I am not going to touch that article lest Wik accuse me of taking sides. Kosebamse 08:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I will accuse you however of calling this a "Wik editwar theatre". It is a Wik/RickK editwar theatre. --Wik 08:07, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • You will accuse, everyone else will ignore. - Hephæstos|§ 08:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • So you're saying it has to be set in stone that Eastern European countries were "Soviet satellites"? I don't mind the page noting that some accused them of being so (just as the US was accused of turning Western Europe into a US satellite, especially countries like Italy), but saying it is a "fact" and then freezing it is silly. This should be argued on the East Germany Discussion page first.
    • Unprotected by 172.
  • Paradox -- Wik. Anthony. By now, you know the scenario. Jwrosenzweig 21:17, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected by Eloquence 15 minutes or so later. The edit war continued in diminished energy and seems now to have stopped (I hope?). Jwrosenzweig 05:52, 12 Feb 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)
      • Unprotected by the request of participants in the discussion on the talk page: they'd settled the introduction's issues, or seem to. Probably still worth keeping an eye on...Jwrosenzweig 17:32, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • DNA is now unprotected. FirmLittleFluffyThing 17:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 12:12, Feb 8, 2004 Delirium unprotected Something Awful
  • Peter Beattie - Adam Carr made the following request via Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Peter Beattie is being constantly vandalised while it is visible on the Main Page]]. Please protect it until its time on the main page ends. Adam 06:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) -- Viajero 09:31, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems like excessive zeal to me. Only three instances over a few days - the George Bush pages typically get that much in a few hours, year in and year out. Tannin 09:37, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected by Tannin 12:01, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Peter Beattie - repeated vandalization. Probably 24 hours will be long enough. -- Viajero 14:29, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • One thousand seven hundred twenty-nine - Wik and Anthony each reverted each other 4+ times in an hour...I figured it was time to shut down the page. We have to solve the Wik/Anthony issue before they get half the 'pedia protected. Jwrosenzweig 18:41, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't reverting. Anthony DiPierro 18:45, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • WWJD - Jesus would not get in an edit war over the page. Temporarily protected because Wik and Anthony (yet again) were fighting over it. Adam Bishop 19:35, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Progress was being made. This shouldn't have been protected. Anthony DiPierro 19:37, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC) Unprotected by Tannin 13:05, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Antinomy -- Edit war Wik and Anthony. -- Viajero 21:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC) Unprotected by Tannin 13:05, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Shnorrer - another Wik/Anthony special. Each implores we ban the other. I recommend we take their advice. - Hephaestos 04:45, 9 Feb 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
                  • Was unprotected by someone unknown, 11th Feb
  • Nizkor Project - edit war, protection requested by both participants, chose a random version. Morwen 09:31, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • unprotected now, since this was very old. Morwen 15:48, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
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
    • Unprotected. One week. silsor 18:38, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs to go back onto protection, as Silsor did not consult both parties, if they wanted protection taken away. - 148.197.5.17
      • No consultation of involved parties (or their agreement) is needed in unprotecting a page. Also, please sign your comments. - snoyes 16:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Micronation - latest in the Look At Me I'm Wik-fest. - Hephaestos 05:12, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected, been protected almost two weeks. Let's see. silsor 18:44, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected, Silsor seems to have forgotten to do so while removing the protection notice. Andre Engels 20:52, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Oops. silsor 22:51, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Reprotected due to Wik & Gene Pool. silsor 22:56, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected a week later by Angela.
  • 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)
    • Added protection notice. silsor 18:29, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected, been a while Dysprosia 07:05, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Reprotected end of february by Anthere
    • Unprotected on the 11th of march by Silsor. FirmLittleFluffyThing 17:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Haganah - Danny and Europeen edit war on the status of Haganah's terrorist status. Poor Yorick
    • Added protection notice. silsor 18:32, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected. It has been a few days now. Kingturtle 03:58, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Alexander Lukashenko because Adam Carr and 172 can't agree and revert each other in turn. Adam Carr asked for Wikipedia:Request for mediation about 12 hours ago, and we recommanded that he first try to ask for other people opinion, or perhaps a poll. Anthere [note: protected Feb. 1 --silsor]
    • Added protection notice. silsor 18:35, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected. Been over two weeks. silsor 18:47, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges (again) - Lir made a comment on 168, 168 reverted, snoyes reverted, 168 reverted, packran revereted, etc etc. →Raul654 06:21, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • As a subnote - after adding the msg:protected tag to the top, 168 reverted me, and 2 other sysops who attempted to restore it (after it was protected). Far be it for me to criticize another admin for using his powers (I've generally been the most reluctant to say anything bad about someone on the misuse of powers page), but I think willfully and repeatedly editing the same article after protection can be considered an abuse of admin powers. →Raul654 06:30, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected by me on February 12. silsor 03:27, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada I protected this yesterday (thanks for reminding me to post this Uriber) after an edit war between Viajero and StarOfDavid. It seems that the best way to deal with the pages is to simply protect them as they become sticking points. OneVoice, I and others are working on the WP:AIC page as a central way of organizing discussions related to these various related AIC articles. To discuss the page in question, we are going to try an experiment, using the WP:AICO (Arab-Israeli conflict Oasis) - as a place for all related discussion. I will include this message there as well. By forcing people to discuss these issues on a separate but related page, we can keep all the small fires from getting out of control - its the small fires that are problematic, because they are hard to access, can pop up anywhere, and rareley get good moderation. Be well,-戴&#30505sv 20:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected after a six day hiatus. --Modemac 12:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Israeli-Palestinian conflict - protected due to revert war. I saved to the last version before the revert war, an edit by an anon not involved. Dori | Talk 15:01, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Removed protection. Kingturtle 00:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Curse of the Bambino - despite my best efforts for compromise (some of which succeeded), this page was ultimately hit by huge vandalism from either several like-minded individuals, or one person with wildly rotating IPs. It's almost like the page was /.ed or something. Anyhow, hopefully 24 hours off will be sufficient. I'd like to get out of the protected page business. Jwrosenzweig 21:11, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • September 11, 2001 attacks - edit war. Protected by PMA 01:52, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Another Plautus satire vs everyone special →Raul654 01:55, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected following banning of Plautus by Jimbo. -- ChrisO 22:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • The Turner Diaries -- Request due to POV vandalism. --mav 15:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected, though I may be over optimistic. -- Infrogmation 04:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Tornado - requested on requests for protection. Edit war: Plautus vs others. →Raul654 18:05, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Has been unprotected for a while. →Raul654 02:01, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Europanto - vandalism by lots of different IPs, protection requested in IRC. Protection removed on 17 Feb, no recurrence. Jamesday 17:08, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

List of recently unprotected pages

  • William Kelly - Wik and Anthony back at yet another edit war. Kosebamse 05:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected by Jwrosenzweig 18:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) -- the consensus on the talk page was obvious, and in a discussion with Anthony, I believe I have assurance that the edit war will not resume. I hope that I am right.
  • Talk:Pantheism. Repeated vandalism by Sam Spade RickK 03:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)/repeated personal attacks by Bcorr and RK. Sam Spade 03:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Torah - edit war between new user Sihan and, well, everybody else. Keeps adding Torah Cosmos, which is also listed on VfD. RadicalBender 20:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Good. We need less of this nonsense. Rickyrab 20:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotecting for now. If more nonsense is added without talking about it, I will reblock. RadicalBender 21:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • Al Gore. Revert war between ChrisDJackson and others over whether the images are copyright violations or not. Angela. 00:18, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I am trying to resolve this in the TALK page, but I am not getting full cooperation from ChrisDJackson. Kingturtle 19:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I have removed protection. Kingturtle 02:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Protected page. - protected because wik is starting an edit war. Kingturtle 20:17, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Removed protection. Kingturtle 04:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Dagestan - protected due to revert war Dori | Talk 00:55, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Removed protection. The dispute seems to have been resolved, or discussion has died down. See: Talk:Dagestan. Dori | Talk 17:22, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Al Gore - I have removed protection. Chris is trying to cooperate. - Texture 05:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Daniel Wright - protected to prevent anonymous user from blanking it constantly. David Newton 20:20, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Have removed protection so that the information in the article may be verified by other users and amended accordingly. The moment it is vandalised again I call for the page to be re-protected and kept that way for the duration of discussion on vfd. -- Graham  :) 20:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Page reprotected after anon user went through and put 'allegedly' in front of everything. - Graham  :) 01:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Unprotected again. Anonymous user seems to have gone now. -- Oliver P. 04:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Shotokan Karate - protected by Jiang after an edit war between Jiang and Arvid Singh on whether the page should be here or at Shotokan. Although I agree with Jiang on where the page should be, I do not agree that there is a good reason to allow a sysop to protect a page where he is involved in in this case. - Andre Engels 01:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • User:Bird - not sure where to place this, but the page has been protected by Ed Poor because the user has been banned.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unprotected_page&oldid=2793629"