Wikipedia talk:Lists of protected pages/Archive 1

message: It's been suggested that the "Protected page" text given to non-sysops should link here - see Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text.
:I propose it link to Wikipedia:This page is protected. (replied more at Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text). Angela. 20:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected page text 

message: Dear Wiki, Lir, and all concerned wikipedians,
Wik is a passionate user. Such passion has its merits but it also has its downsides. There are currently four articles protected because of edit wars involving Wik, and there are three recently unprotected articles that had been protected because of edit wars involving Wik. 
*Temporarily protected pages: October 2003 (vs. Lir), Silesia (vs. Nico), Richard Neustadt (vs. a few users), death camp (vs. Lir)
*Recently unprotected: extermination camp (vs. Lir), Anton Chekhov (vs. Lir), Fyodor Dostoevsky (vs. Lir)
What can be done to improve this situation? Kingturtle 02:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Some way of protecting a page against a particular user would be good, rather than having to stop everyone editing it. Angela. 05:30, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Wik 

message: I just noticed something very funny. The last 4 entires in the protection log: 
: 01:44, Feb 6, 2004 Raul654 unprotected User:Anthony DiPierro 
: 01:44, Feb 6, 2004 Raul654 protected User:Anthony DiPierro 
: 23:56, 5 Feb 2004 Maveric149 unprotected Talk:Genetic basis for homosexuality 
: 23:55, 5 Feb 2004 Maveric149 protected Talk:Genetic basis for homosexuality 
: 23:00, 5 Feb 2004 Morven unprotected User:Cyan 
: 23:00, 5 Feb 2004 Morven protected User:Cyan 
: 16:42, 5 Feb 2004 Finlay McWalter unprotected USA PATRIOT Act 
: 16:41, 5 Feb 2004 Finlay McWalter unprotected USA PATRIOT Act
Notice, each of those protections lasted less than a minute. It's almost certain that they were all accidents. Admins, myself including, keep accidentally hitting that protection button. →Raul654 07:03, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
:That often happens. At least now there's a log people can check for this more easily. There was some discussion at MediaWiki talk:Unprotectthispage about making the unprotect button more obvious to prevent it happening so much. Angela. 07:23, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
::Why not just generate a list of all currently protected pages, rather than having to search through the protection log to find out? →Raul654 07:33, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
::Because there are issues with sysops running queries on the database . Supposedly they are disabled. Angela. 07:52, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
:::That's what I figured - it might be a processor intensive query. So why not, at the very least, make an occasional dump of the listing? →Raul654 08:25, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
:I've done this myself.  The solution to this problem would be to make it take at least two clicks to protect a page.  For example, just like you have to give a reason for deleting an article and then check the box and click the "confirm" button, we could do the same here.  It would have the added benefit of giving sysops a textbox to summarize their reason for protecting (or unprotecting). I've heard on IRC that Tim Starling had some software change in his long-term plans. Minesweeper 01:16, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the two I did for USA PATRIOT are both unprotects: both the protect and unprotect were deliberate, but the double unprotect is an artifact of my "reunprotecting" the page when the first attempt to do so appeared to time out.  But your point is valid (I just did on Peter Pilz as an experiment).  Given that deleting a page requires a confirmation, I don't see why protection shouldn't do so too. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 01:23, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the comment thing is a good idea. In particular, I know some folks protect things like village pump or VfD for a minute or two while they fix formatting - if someone trying to edit it in the meantime saw "fixing formatting - will be done momentarily" that would calm their nerves, I think. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 02:14, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Why not just take away the page protection button and make the process more cumbersome? Page protection would still be possible in short order for valid reasons, but hasty page protections and accidental page protections would vanish entirely. - Plautus satire 21:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidentally protected pages

message: I don't see any point in making a separate header for "de facto semi-permanently protected pages". The only purpose I can see in this is that some passionate reversionist (note: I do not know and do not care who made that header) uses it as a vehicle of propaganda, and that's not what this page is for. Kosebamse 14:54, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Propaganda for what? The point is to indicate those pages that have no prospect of being unprotected. There's no way you can call a protection like this "temporary". --Wik 17:58, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
Others disagree about "no prospect". Further, there is the small matter of wikipedia:protection policy, which has no element of "de facto permanent" permitted. Which probably means the page should be unprotected, doesn't it, so it's in your favour. Martin 18:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: That's what I'm saying all along. So why isn't it? --Wik 18:34, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
That's a good question, but a seperate one. I've edited Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to reflect this request of yours. As an involved user, I doubt I have the authority to unprotect it myself. Martin 19:07, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  De facto semi-permanent protections