Wikipedia talk:Lists of protected pages/Archive 2

message: OK, I just spent 4 solid hours sorting this page out. At 34k it had got way' to long, and edting it had become very difficult. No wonder it was so full of errors! I made three major changes:
* Split off the recently unprotected pages into Wikipedia:Unprotected page to cut the page-length in half. This means you have to make two edits to unprotect a page (which is a pity) but on the other hand, at least you can see what you are doing without going cross-eyed and wearing out your scrolling wheel.
* Re-ordered the counter-intuitive "newest at top" listings, so that the page order is now the standard "newest at bottom". 
* Went through the protected list:
** cleaning out a whole stack of no-longer-required protections (mostly Wik vs Anthony stuff)
** discovering another whole stack of pages that were listed here but had been unprotected ages ago
** discovering another stack of protected pages that probably should have been unprotected ages ago, but which no-one knew about because this page was so long and disorganised.
In doing this, I came to several conclusions, which I think are worth sharing:
* Now that I've ruthlessly organised and trimmed, the two pages would probably be short enough to combine again. But it was only the split that made the ruthless cleaning out possible in the first place. (There is still more that could be done, of course. But it should be fairly easy now.)
* 99% of the page protections are caused by 1% of the users. (Well, probably 0.1% of the users.) If we were more proactive about dealing with problem users, we wouldn't have got into this mess in the first place.
Finally, my apologies to all for such bold and unilaterial action. I didn't actually intend to go anywhere near as far as this, and I carefully made easy revert points so that other users could come along and restore the status quo if desired. But each action seemed to lead to another one and now reverting my changes isn't really practicable, short of several hours work. (I always did tend to get a bit carried away with a good idea.)  Tannin 14:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm struck by your comment that "99% of the page protections are caused by 1% of the users." Maybe this is too simplistic a suggestion, but perhaps there should be a middle way between protecting an article and banning a user: banning a user from editing a particular article, say. If an edit war breaks out between two users, it might be worth banning them from that particular article in order to force them to work out their differences. In the meantime, other editors could get on with developing the article without being caught in the middle of someone else's edit war. -- ChrisO 01:24, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what I am trying to do as an arbitrator. --mav 01:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorting this page out

message: I think an unprotected article should remain on this list for a day. If the article has to be re-protected, it makes more sense to keep that action listed under the same activity....if that makes any sense. Kingturtle 04:41, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing unprotected articles from this list 

message: I think this page should be semi-permanently protected. If you look at its  history, it is mostly vandalisms and reversions. Since it's a fairly important page to have in an unvandalized state, I think it should be protected. Dori | Talk 17:45, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
*But wouldn't it be unfortunate to protect a page that starts out saying In case you did not already know, everyone can edit an article on Wikipedia. So if you see something wrong, just click "Edit this page."? Kingturtle 22:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Contact us]]

message: Nazism was protected without support of policy, please look into this and correct it, thanks. Sam Spade 03:51, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Protection policy]]

message: I disagree with protecting this page. Protecting it won't stop people who want to vandalise from doing so. They will just move on to a less watched page and vandalise that, which is more likely to go unnoticed. There are a large number of pages where the majority of edits are vandalism, including Wikipedia:Contact us and Wikipedia:This page is protected. I don't see that as a reason to permanently protect them. The history shows a number of edits by non-sysops and unlogged in users that were valid edits. Why should these people be stopped from editing the page? Oh, and didn't I already say this somewhere? Angela. 00:09, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your second point, but we can't not protect it just because the vandals will move to a different page. Ilyanep 14:58, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the point Angela was trying to make was that it's more likely to be fixed quickly on a high-profile page. --Random|832 17:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:About]]

message: Is "protection requested via IRC" a valid reason for protection? With no other explanation of why, or who made such a request? I dispute the protection of Adolf Hitler, esp. as there seems to be no reason for protection expressed on the article talk page. Sam [Spade] 20:18, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect the page supplying a reason 

message: Might it make sense to allow _all_ users [not just sysops] to A) protect/deprotect their own user pages, and B) edit their own protected user pages? --Random|832 12:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but don't let them block their own talk pages (Trolls, vandals, etc.) Ilyanep 14:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's a wiki. Why would you want to stop people editing? What about if I want to fix a spelling, or correct a link after I move or delete a page? A user does not own their user page; they just happen to have more reason to edit it than other users. If you want something only you can edit, why not get your own webpage. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Angela. 06:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: To the contrary, I believe it's a good idea. - Mike Rosoft 15:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-permanently protected (user pages) 

message: :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.
This has been proposed for over a year and lacks consensus, sponsorship, and developer interest.  I have moved it here for now.  Should any support develop for this idea, it can be moved back.  UninvitedCompany 01:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material removed from project pages; user: and user talk: pages 

message: I am dismayed at the number of user pages that are protected, particularly since many have no significant history of vandalism.  Protected pages are harmful, right?  I believe that administrators should not protect their user pages merely because they have the capacity to do so.  Those user pages that are targets of ongoing, frequent vandalism can and should be protected; others should not.
Also, I note that there are a number of user talk pages that are protected.  I believe, strongly, that this is a bad thing, and would encourage the users who have such pages to unprotect them unless there are overwhelming reasons for keeping them protected.  UninvitedCompany 01:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. It sets a bad example, and is not fair on non-sysops who can't do the same thing. It's also annoying when there is something which needs to be fixed on a page. There is very very rarely any good reason to permanently protect such pages. Sysops should expect a bit of vandalism on their user page. Maybe this should be mentioned at RfA. Angela. 06:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive protection of user and talk pages 

message: is being vandalised again. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[LUElinks]] 

message: The recent edit histories of George W. Bush and John Kerry have been a slew of petty vandalisms and their reverts. Barring some major unexpected developments that will necessitate serious additions to their respective articles, I suspect that more of the same is about all we can expect over the next few days. I think temporary vprotected status for both pages to election day might be warrented. Objections, comments? (this same text added at Talk:George W. Bush, Talk:John Kerry, and Wikipedia talk:Protected page). -- Infrogmation 19:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I belive that is an excellent idea supported by existing policy regarding protection of pages that are targets of persistent vandalism.  I have protected the pages.  uc 20:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: What if something notable happens? Will the protection continue between the election and inauguration, to keep people from gloating? Gazpacho 20:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The protection can be removed by any admin. Notice my proposal does not suggest continuing the protection later. -- Infrogmation 20:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Someone else has supported this on the talk page.  I appear to be in the minority thinking this is a bad precendent to set. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 20:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gloating would take the form of a bad edit.  The purpose of the protection is to deter vandalism, not bad edits.  While bad edits have been a problem in the past on these pages, the present problem is vandalism.  Once the election is over, I believe that vandalism of these pages will return to its previous (lower but still considerable) level.  I see parallels between the situation on these pages and that on the main page, which was a constant target of vandalism before it was protected permanently.  With the number of page views the Bush and Kerry pages are likely to receive in the coming days, it is bad PR for us and poor public service if we permit vandalism to stand even if only for a minute or two.  The Kerry page was a recent target of page move vandalism, which was reverted the wrong way, so that the histories had to be merged, making the page unavailable in its proper form for several minutes.  This sort of thing is only likely to get worse for the next few days.  I am not a big fan of page protection but this brief period on these pages is justified.  uc 20:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text:  That would be me. I just see a glut of vandelism between now and the election. `PPGMD 20:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a great fan of it either but if it must be done, then it must be done.  Does protection stop page moves by the way?  I wasn't aware that it did. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 20:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: It started out there but was moved here for some reason. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 20:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush, Kerry: Short term page protection? 

message: I can't help but notice that we have a lot of protected pages right now, and to remind people that protected pages are considered harmful. I think we need to be more  careful when protecting pages - I've seen a lot get protected over relatively minor edit wars where the admin who protected could just as easily have stepped in and helped mediate a resolution to a dispute. Snowspinner 20:16, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
: Yup.  In that same light, it's someone else's turn to go and unprotect all the user pages and "boilerplate" pages that have no history of vandalism, or where they have been protected a long time.  I still have scars from last time I did this.  uc 20:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I notice though that there were quite a lot that were protected by User:Neutrality on October 20.  What is the standard period these things are left before unprotection if there is no indication of a resolution in the article's talk page? -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 20:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe it is traditional to allow a week to go by without any discussion on the article's talk page.  In cases where the article has been repeatedly protected, a longer delay may be appropriate (e.g. Surrealism).  uc 20:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, many of the pages listed by Neutrality on October 20 were not protected on that date but earlier, and he wasn't necessarily the one doing the protecting, he just updated the list on the page. Quite a few of these are the pages affected by the recurring revert wars involving Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and/or VeryVerily, which is now the subject of an arbitration case. If these users get put on revert parole then unprotection should be okay, but unfortunately so far attempts at unprotection have usually led to an immediate resumption of the revert war. --Michael Snow 18:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Overprotection

message: I would like to propose that we now place  and  tags at the bottom of the affected pages.  This will make it more unobtrusive, which is important in those instances where high-profile pages are protected, e.g. John Kerry and George W. Bush.  Indeed, in any case where a user is coming to the encyclopedia to read an article, rather than to edit it, the protected message is cluttersome.
The requirement for such tags being at the top of articles was instituted before the software was changed to warn administrators when editing protected articles.  The idea was that administrators would be less likely to edit protected pages inadvertently (an action usually in violation of policy) if the notice were prominent.  Now that the software warns administrators (in bold red text no less) who are about to edit a protected page, this is no longer necessary.
uc 21:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be reasonable for , the reason being that if it's only protected due to vandalism, there's no particular reason to warn the reader that the content may be flawed. With respect to the regular  tag, I am inclined to disagree, as a full-blown revert war strongly suggests the article may not be in an acceptable state. Inadvertent editing of protected pages may have been the primary motivation at the time, but I have to think that another consideration is whether the reader deserves to be informed that there are concerns about the content. --Michael Snow 18:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of protected page tags 

message: Several pages have been protected as a result of revert wars involving User:Chuck F. The protected versions are heavily disputed, in some cases reflecting only Chuck F's view against a more consensus or NPOV version. Following Wikipedia:The Wrong Version, everyone involved put up with this. However, some people not aware of the background have edited these protected pages for grammer/spelling, and the protection notices have been swapped for a smaller one. The smaller notice makes it appear that the currently protected versions are endorsed. I don't believe the shorter notice is appropriate except in cases where pages are the subject of obvious vandalism and there is no content dispute. I also think more attention should be drawn to the policy to not edit protected pages. The affected pages in this case are: Libertarianism and libertarian theory and Libertarian League. --172.203.11.105 04:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  protectedsmall notices and editing protected pages 

message: I agree with Pakaran's comments on the de facto policy of protecting images on the Main Page and I've added the following line to Wikipedia:Editing the main page: "Images are also temporarily protected while they are featured on the Main Page." -- ChrisO 19:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Images protected while on Main Page

message: Why has the redirect Wikipedia:Popular articles been protected? Is the protection against some sort of database bug? The discussion Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Popular articles says its history is corrupted somehow. jni 14:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Popular articles]]

message: I'm not sure if this is a security problem or not. Yesterday, the :Image:Humpback anglerfish.png was featured in the Template:Did you know on the Main Page. A local page was created, with some of the copyright info, but the image is actually on the Commons. The local page was eventually protected, but the page on the Commons never was.
Is this a security hole? I assume creating a local page, and protecting it, is sufficient to prevent someone from uploading a local image and thus overriding the version on the Commons (which was my initial concern). But it also looks like a persistent vandal could have just uploaded a new image over the one on the Commons, with the same effect. Would loading a local copy of the image, protecting it here, and then deleting the local copy when the image leaves the Main Page be sufficient?
Since I'm unregistered I have no practical experience with uploading images; I may be mistaken. But given the recent template vandalism and the current lockdown of the Main Page, if it is a problem a solution should be disseminated, at least to the handful of people involved with updating the templates and protecting the images on the front page. In keeping with the security thought obscurity precept, I deliberately didn't ask while it was still in the template; and I posted the question here, rather than on a more high profile page like Main Page talk, or the admin's noticeboard.
68.81.231.127 15:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front page security hole? 

message: I've just protected Template:Welcome. This important template is visible to numerous new users on their user talk pages. It was recently vandalized with a graphic felatio image. I noticed at least one user thought the image had been put on their own page by someone. I put a note on Template_talk:Welcome in case anyone without admin access has reason to make legitimate edits to the template. Any objections? -- Infrogmation 23:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected Templates 

message: Please move Template:Unverified to Template:No source. I can't do this because this template is protected. Thank you. --Ellmist 05:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Unverified]]

message: I thought it was really useful to separate out the non-articles that we don't need to unprotect quickly, from the real articles we do need to free, so I put this subsection back. Noel (talk) 12:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm on this topic, I agree with the comments above that using {mediawiki:noarticletext} as the content of recreation-abuse pages is really confusing - it wasn't until I read the entry above that I understood what I was seeing there. Unless there's an objection, I will create a suitable template and modify those pages to use it. Noel (talk) 14:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Protected against article re-creation vandalism" subsection 

message: VfD I know, but that's not necessarily so for all readers. What is RfC???
These need to be explained/linked in this article. 24.91.43.225 05:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: The article woman has a {vprotected} message on its top, but it is not protected. Is it supposed to be protected, or should the message be removed? - Mike Rosoft 15:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected article marked as protected

message: I followed the link here from the Al-Qaeda page (via Wikipedia:This_page_is_protected) but neither there or on this page I found the proper place to request unprotection. Could someone enlighten me - posting the answer here or to my user page. Or just read the talk on Al-Qaeda and unprotect it... TH 19:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to go with a request to unprotect