ވިކިޕީޑިއާ:Protected page
- Note: pages permanently protected because of visibility or legal reasons are now listed separately atWikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages.
- Note: pages protected as a {{deletedpage}} or redirect to another page are now listed separately atWikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation.
- Note: You can request protection and unprotection atWikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Administratorshave the ability to "protect" pages or images so that they cannot be modified except by other admins (the link "މި ޞަފްޙާއަށް އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ" is replaced by a link "މަސްދަރު ބައްލަވާ" when viewed by non-admins). This ability is only to be used in limited circumstances.
Adminsmust notprotect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case ofsimple vandalism.
Articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases. |
Policy[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice.
- Do not protect a page on which you are involved in anedit dispute(Category:Conflicts).
SeeWikipedia:Protection policyfor more detailed advice and the purpose of protected pages.
Procedure[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- Protect the page, supplying a reason.
- Add {{protected}} (or {{vprotected}} for vandalism) to the top of the temporarily protected page and make mention of the protection in the edit summary.
- List pages you protect onWikipedia:Protected page;if it is protected due to a conflict, you may want to listalluser names/IPs involved in the conflict.
- Please use{{article|ARTICLE NAME}}when listing a page atWikipedia:Protected page,whereARTICLE NAMEis the article or page you wish to protect.
- Consider encouraging a resolution between the disputing parties.
- Remove the protection (while supplying a reason) once the conflict has been resolved.
- Remove {{protected}} from the top of an unprotected page and make mention of the removal in the edit summary.
See also[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- Wikipedia:List of permanently protected pages- please list long-term protections here.
- Requests for page protection- place to request protection; use when your involvement in editing a page precludes protecting it yourself. Also used by non-administrators who wish for a page to be protected. Also for unprotection requests.
- Protection log- automated log of protections and unprotections
- This page is protected
- Wikipedia maintenance section on maintaining this page
- Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages- please add pages subjected to repeated vandalism to this list
- m:Protected pages considered harmful- essay
- m:The Wrong Version- semi-humorous essay about reverting warriors' perception of page protection
- Template:Editprotected- enables a streamline process to edit protected pages by quickly putting up requests
Rationale[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
Seemeta:Protected pages considered harmful,meta:edit wars
Instructions[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
If you protect a page, or find a protected page not listed here, please add it below, to the appropriate sections. Please also add ashortdescription 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. Also see theprotection logfor recent unprotections, which replaces the manual list of recently unprotected pages. The {{protected}} header automatically addsCategory:Protectedto the page, adding it to the Category's listing.
Pages protected due toWP:OFFICEguidelines[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
PerJimbo Wales,some articles are being protected byUser:Dannydue to complaints at Wikimedia's office. Please do not unprotect these without asking Danny first
- ފަންވަތް:Article- vandalism. Protected byDannyperWP:OFFICE.howcheng{chat}00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- protected on 1/23 byUser:Jimbo Wales.OFFICE. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- semi-protected perDanny's request --Shanel22:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Until work is completed there.Danny21:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Pages protected only against moves[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
{{moveprotected}} to the top of a move-locked page. New protections should be added at thebottomof this list.
- ފަންވަތް:Non-article,just noticed this, not sure why else except for the obvious visibility.Dmcdevit·t01:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Non-articleProtected way back due to reasons of visibility.Geni10:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleProtected from moving to something abusive.Redwolf2404:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Non-articlevisibility reasons.Shanes04:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Non-article– should not be moved without consensus on talk page. Sudden moving of widely used Wikipedia systems disrupts wikipedia. --Phroziac(talk)21:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Nidhogg- Note that a "vote" is going on about whether it should be moved from the foreign language title to English - I have moved it there already, and have suggested that the vote be reframed to whether it should be movedawayfrom the move-protected English title.Uncle Ed20:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have unprotected the page for moves, since there is no active page-move back and forth. If such occurs, the page can easily be re-protected.Cimon avaro; on a pogostick.00:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Non-articleUser:Docglasgowprotected this a while ago... I unprotected and then reprotected today after not knowing what's going on. --Nlu(talk) 02:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article.Look atwhat happenedto theUnited States.Titoxd(?!?-did you read this?)23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article.what happened.'nuff said. –ugen6423:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article.IANLEELOVE(talk•contribs) keeps moving it to titles such as "Mr Ian Lee" (which is now a redirect) or even "Mr Ian 'the man' Lee" (which I've deleted twice now). These moves are done against the consensus of the other editors at that article, and without discussion.Lupo13:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleControversy and multiple moves, plus a recentWP:RMdescision.WhiteNightT|@|C06:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- pages with long edit history. -- User:Docu
- ފަންވަތް:Article- some editor has decided that he know a better name, contrary to naming convention of other Polish monarchs. Page protected from moves until discussion (between this user and rest of editors) is resolved on talk page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk03:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleRepeatedly moved without consensus.Markyour words19:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Pages protected due to edit wars or vandalism[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
This list always needs pruning. Wikipedia works perfectly fine on a protection cycle of less than one week. Please examine older listings and unprotect if at all possible. If you add an article here, please remember to check the talk page frequently, and always consider removing protection as soon as possible.
Real articles[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
Full protection[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- e,efvqbjlsqd,dbakadqqbvsjhvsafe alsoCategory:Protected,Category:Protected against vandalismandProtection log
Latest at thebottom,please; and please sign all entries so we know how old they are.
Please ensure that you add one of the following templates at the top of a protected page:{{vprotected}}in the case of vandalism.
12 Feb and before[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- ފަންވަތް:Articlerepeated removal of photos and insertion of NPOV tags with no explanation offered, despite talk page entries dating back to 2 months ago on why they were kept. Disguised (persistent) vandalism, perhaps? --МиборовскийU|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- From what I read on the talk page, they are almost ready for unprotection. Good. 7 weeks is excessive. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleThird attempt at protection in a month. People use edit wars to enforce their point.Oleg Alexandrov(talk) 02:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- protected by GregAsche on 1/27. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)09:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleIt's being protected per decision of the mentors on the article (which would be me,Katefan0,JdavidbandRal315.If you want it unprotected, ask one of us and we will discuss it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleedit war -RexNL22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- edit war yet again.howcheng{chat}</spaKglegxggxvn> 00:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- edit war involving the same parties asފަންވަތް:Article.howcheng{chat}00:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article,ފަންވަތް:Article,ފަންވަތް:Article.All subject of a pernicious edit war mostly involving one user blocked multiple times for 3RR against consensus. I'm hoping protection will encourage him to come discuss the matter on the talk page as a last resort. If not, longer blocks may be necessary. ·Katefan0(scribble)/poll16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, he comes and discuss onTalk:Sea of Japanall right -- he just thinks that he's absolutely right and people who disagree with him to be absolutely wrong. --Nlu(talk) 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not encouraging =( ·Katefan0(scribble)/poll17:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleedit war. --a.n.o.n.y.mt18:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article"ROHA" returns. --Nlu(talk) 07:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
13 Feb to 19 Feb[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Edit war ·Katefan0(scribble)/poll17:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Redirect. Anon keeps forking the original article to push his own POV. Should be unprotected when things settle down. --Conti|✉18:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Edit war, protected by Essjay.--Sean Black(talk)21:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleandފަންވަތް:Articleare protected, apparently as part of the "experimental" process onWikipedia:Stable versions.This strikes me as rather dubious, but at at any rate it should presumably be done transparently, hence I'm listing here.Alai02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I rejected the request myself and nothing has changed since then. Sigh. I don't care if it's stable or not. I'm against protecting pages just to protect them, which is what this feels like. No one has touched them outside of legit editors. If they become high risk and high profile, fine, then protect, but right now it feels like a waste of protection. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)05:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articlelow level edit war and use of sockpuppets by one editor to avoid 3RR.--MONGO05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article,edit warring over splitting article. Protected to encourage discussion.the wub"?!"19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- revert war. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)08:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleEdit war ·Katefan0(scribble)/poll16:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article-reversion war.//Pathoschild(admin/') 23:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article(edit war between two users)Sceptre(Talk)13:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articlecompromise position to avoid wheel warring between other admins, and to allow discussion to continue. I believe there are alsoWP:OFFICEconcerns.Physchim62(talk)19:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article.Edit war. -Will Beback00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- edit war is back. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)05:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- protected by Inter on 2/16. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- protected by Raul654 on 2/18. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- FP by Mr. Splash on 2/16. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article.Revert warring.--Sean Black(talk)23:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleEdit war ·Katefan0(scribble)/poll03:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article.Revert war and addition of potentially libellous content.The UninvitedCo.,Inc.05:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Edit war during afd debate. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)06:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:La- edit war with people using edit summaries to "discuss". --Woohookitty(cat scratches)08:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- IP address edit warring.Jayjg(talk)13:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- revert war. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)14:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- protected by JzG on 2/19. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
20 Feb to 26 Feb[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- ފަންވަތް:Article- moved to full protect due to people getting around SP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)09:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- protected byUser:CambridgeBayWeather.--Woohookitty(cat scratches)09:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- revert war still continuing despite previous 12-hour cooling-down protection; protected until consensus is sorted out on talk page. --Nick Boalch?!?11:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleprotected after request fromFCYTravis(talk•contribs•blocks•protects•deletions•moves):edit warring over OTRS concerns. Short protection term should be sufficient in first instance.Physchim62(talk)22:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleEdit war ·Katefan0(scribble)/poll13:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:La- edit war. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:La- long long simmering edit war. Goes back to mid December if not further. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Laandފަންވަތް:La- Same issue they had in mid December. What do they call it? oi. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)05:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:LaEdit war ·Katefan0(scribble)/poll22:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:LaSterile edit war.Rhobite00:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:La- edit war. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)06:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- See alsoCategory:Semi-protectedandProtection log
Latest at thebottom,please; and please sign all entries so we know how old they are.
Please ensure that you add{{sprotected}}at the top of the semi-protected page.
12 Feb and before[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- ފަންވަތް:Article- unprotection is tried occasionally, but for the most part, this article is permanently SP. Keeping this here as a placeholder really. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- needs to be SP at least for awhile yet. Dispute has only stopped because the page is semi protected. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)03:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Non-article,part of Wikipedia:Introduction, one of the first things many see. --user:zanimum
- ފަންވަތް:Articleis still suffering from DickyRoberts vandalism. Reprotected by Alkivar some time ago. -Splashtalk23:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Semi-protected perArbcom ruling.--Woohookitty(cat scratches)20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- attempted unprotection on 2/7; anon reversions happened just over five hours later. I don't see this being lifted anytime soon.android7920:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleprotected by David Gerard.howcheng{chat}00:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
13 Feb to 19 Feb[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- ފަންވަތް:Article— moved from full to sem-protection. Some issues resolved on the Talk page, but emotional ranting from anons there suggest that it's still at risk. --Mel Etitis(Μελ Ετητης) 18:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- This was unprotected byUser:Splash,since when it has been vandalised three times in sixteen hours, identically but from different IP addresses. --Mel Etitis(Μελ Ετητης) 18:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- part of the whole cartoons thing. Being hit hard. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)08:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:La- protected by Essjay on 2/15. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)09:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- protected by Voice of All on 2/16. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- an anon keeps trying to use cut and paste to move the page toIslamic Revolution.Angr/talk10:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleConstant vandalism by students of the school.
- ފަންވަތް:Article- recent pattern of silly vandalism by different anon IPs.BD2412T19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- vandalism. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)07:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleseems to have a magnetic appeal for hilariously original edits like adding changing Jesus Christ to Spongebob Squarepants.Just zisGuy,you know?[T]/[C]
16:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- more vandalismSceptre(Talk)11:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- protected on 2/14. Vandalism. Good old YTMND. Oi. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Anon persists in reinserting content deleted on AfD. --cesarb17:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- vandalism by several IPs.
SoothingR18:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Eight anons editred in 24 hours, every single one vandals -Cecropia23:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
20 Feb to 26 Feb[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- ފަންވަތް:Article- protected by Voice of All on 2/20. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- I realize it's highly unusual to protect a discussion page, but there seemed no alternative in this case. Repeated vandalism, as per the previous entry.CJCurrie23:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Repeated vandalism, from a user who claims he will shift to another address if blocked.CJCurrie23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- The article has been vandalized 20+ recently. I protected it for 48 hours with the intention of discouraging the vandals. I will lift the protection myself, word of honor.Tony the Marine01:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Lots of linkspam by multiple IPs.
SoothingR08:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Same forފަންވަތް:Article.
SoothingR08:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Same forފަންވަތް:Article.
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Edit war.CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)08:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- Persistent vandalism by someone with access to an apparently-large block of IPs.android7918:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article.Continual insertion of POV comments from a blog. This isn't meant to be a long-term measure. I intend the semi-protection to stay just long enough to encourage whoever's doing it to leave.enochlau(talk) 14:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleI downgraded this to semi from VoA's full; maybe doesn't even need semiWilliam M. Connolley23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticlePersistent edits by anon using a number of IPs against consensus and considered vandalism by editors of page.Vsmith23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleas with Feb 8 semiprotection, IP vandalism over content dispute.NSLE(T+C)at 09:10UTC(2006-02-22)09:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articlepersistent anon vandal with rapidly changing IP address. --Martyman-(talk)00:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:La- Asian fetish vandal. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)14:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:La- protected by David.Monniaux on 2/23. Needs to be short. 4-5 vandal edits a day isn't alot. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:La- protected by alhutch on 2/24. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:La- protected for the 2834th time on 2/22. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:LaSP for a few hours to foil dynamic IP vandal hitting this page pretty hard today. ·Katefan0(scribble)/poll17:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:LaWow. Insane amounts of vandalism. ·Katefan0(scribble)/poll20:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:LaAnonymous user believes he has control over the page, and has been vandalising it (or something along those lines). User is blocked, but he has used more than one sockpuppet.Deltabeignet22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:La- vandalism. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)05:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Pages protected against spambot[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
SeeCategory:Protected against spambots
Other[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
Note:Pages protected against recreation should be placed atWikipedia:List_of_pages_protected_against_re-creation
- ފަންވަތް:LnOne editor making repeated tiny edits to heavily used template. Have left note on editor's page, suggesting he needs to work on a copy in the sandbox, rather than on the template itself. Should think this only needs to be a brief protection. 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Ln:Edit war on whether to link to a list of times the admin has been blocked. —FREAK OFNURxTURE(TALK)03:56, Jan. 8, 2006
- ފަންވަތް:Ln:Edit war on the icon: flag or map. The map doesn't look right, but the flag is a problem for political reasons. For now, it has no icon - hopefully a equitable solution will be found soon, but the temperature is more than a little warm on the talk page.Grutness...wha?05:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- full protection fromArdenn(talk•contribs) changing the closing admin's decision text. I'll remove the protection in 15 minutes when Ardenn has cooled down, hopefully. Update - Not sure the user has agreed to not change it if I unprotect, so leaving protected for now. Should be minimal inpact, since it shouldnt be being changed anyhow. --Syrthiss22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Turks2.jpg- edit war onTurkish peoplespilled over to this image.howcheng{chat}00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg- a hugely controversial image undergoing repeated vandalism from multiple sources. This will almost certainly need to be protected for a long time - perhaps permanently, given the degree of animosity involved. --ChrisO21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Image talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg- somewhat unusually, I've also had to protect the image's talk page; it's been picking up some very ugly comments of the kind which Jimbo blanked from the main article's talk page. Users are now redirected toTalk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversyif they wish to discuss the image. Again, this will require long-term protection. --ChrisO09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Category:Chinese_newspapers- many edits in this category which was voted for deletion are being used as evidence in apending arbitration case.I restored the deletion and protected the page while the case is being deliberated. After it has been concluded the protection can be removed and the category deleted. --Wgfinley13:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Ln:Semiprotected. Talk header template with moderate visibility, repeatedly vandalized by anons. —Ilmari Karonen(talk)03:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Images protected while on theMain Page[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
Images on the main page often become the target of vandalism, particularly being overwritten withshock siteimages, which harms the credibility of the project due to that page's extreme visibility. Also, it takes some time for sysops to determine what caused a main page change. As such, images have begun to be protected during their time there, and this has become ade factopolicy since the second or third week of November 2004.
In order to keep track of these images, please add {{ProtectedMainPageImage}} to them. This will add the image toCategory:Protected main page images.There are typically 4 to 5 images on the main page, although some of them may be from theWikicommons.
Protected user pages[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
User pages sometimes become targets forvandalism,and may be protected upon request of the user associated with the page if this is a serious problem. Clear evidence can be seen from a user's history of the page, and their history from their discussion page.
By software configuration, script files (*.js) and stylesheets (*.css) in user spaces are protected such that only the user or an administrator can edit it.
Full protection[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- User talk:FreestylefrappeTemporarily protected to ward off incivility.Mackensen(talk)03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:LirThis user is banned for one year (ending 23 September 2006 as of 23 September 2005). This user's page has been repeatedly altered to conform to the banned user's wishes without the express authorization of theArbitration Committee.
- User:Journalist(frequent vandalism — over 20 times)
- User:Danny
- User:Gerald Farinas
- User:Kaihsu
- User:Olivier
- User:GeneralPatton
- User:Chris 73{page moves only)
- User:Neutrality(page moves only) - protected byugen64- frequent page move vandalism target
- User:Nitram0002,User:Nitram0003etc. Blocked sock puppet that comes back and removes sock puppet warnings.
- User:Geogre(page moves only) Because of vandal fighting, am anticipating a very quick attack. Protection from moves only desired, as I'll revert anything else.
- User:AndreasPraefcke,because of multi-project vandalism of this user's pages.
- User:Mel Etitis
- User:Mike Halterman
- User:Babelfishs-- Sockpuppet of banned userMARMOT.
- User:Bank of Wikipedia-- temporary protection as of 22:05, 9 July 2005 (UTC) until socks lose interest.
- User:Weev-- seethis versionto see why. This is to bepermanentlylocked. -Ta bu shi da yu03:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- User:Bobbybuilder
- User:Skyring- User banned by ArbComm from Wikipedia on 12 August. Nevertheless returned to make edit (changing comment by another user, part of his usual strategy of trying to show he can break rules and seeing if he does it in a small way, how far can he get away with breaking them) on 15th. Have placed details of the ban on his userpage and protected page to stop its removal.FearÉIREANN
\(caint)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleFunc(t,c,@,) 17:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleperm banned user for various offenses ranging from posting a list of Jewish wikipedians to posting instructions on how to best disrupt wikipedia using open proxies.JtkieferT|@|C----- 20:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleBanned by the ArbCom for one year for leagal treates, continued vandalism and legal threats as an IP on page.--nixie01:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleto prevent continued edits to it by IP socks of perm banned user.JtkieferT|@|C----- 02:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleimposter ofUser:Fenian_SwineIP keeps vandalizing by restoring to copycat page of Fenian Swine's.JtkieferT|@|C----- 20:31, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- User:Nihiltresrequested by user onWP:RFPP,being vandalized. --cesarb23:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- NOTE:Vandal is known to have impersonatedUser:Nihiltresand asked for unprotection[1].Be sure it's the realUser:Nihiltresif unprotecting on request. --cesarb22:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- User:216.175.112.9— this is a non-static IP address, of which one user has taken possession, blanking explanation on the user page and "archiving" vandalism warnings on the Talk page. --Mel Etitis(Μελ Ετητης)07:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
--HappyCamper21:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- User:DJ_Clayworth- repeat vandalism by an AOL proxy IP
- User:Chantin' Fox- user page of a permablocked vandal. Page contained vandalism denigrating another (legitimate) user.Lupo12:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- User:BigDaddy777andUser talk:BigDaddy777.Redwolf24protected the user talk page on October 11th. I protected the user page on the same day. It was done because BigDaddy777 was blocked indefinitely, but continued to be disruptive. --Woohookitty09:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Added the page ofUser:68.40.168.173andUser talk:68.40.168.173.Sock of BD777. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)19:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- On November 16th, I changed the tag on the talk page because it had inadvertently created a User talk talk page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)07:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- User:Aranda56- protected at Aranda's request, since hurricanes force his absence and it has been vandalized several times. --Maru(talk)Contributions22:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Image:Jdavidb.jpg- used on my user page and vandalized; since this is a picture of myself and my child there should never be any need for anyone to change it. Not sure if this is within policy, but I'll unprotect if there's a problem.Jdavidb(talk)15:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- User:Curps
- User:snoyes
- ފަންވަތް:Article- socks of permanently blocked impostor changing this page to a redir.Owen×☎00:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- User:Jake RemingtonandUser talk:Jake Remington- indefinitely blocked user. 2 of his sockpuppets have vandalized the pages and there's a possibility that they are using it to call other people in to vandalized. He's blocked indefinitely anyway. No reason not to protect. Similar to BigDaddy777 case up above. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:AI– AI is banned byan ArbCom ruling,yet their user page keeps getting edited and I'm tired of reverting. There's no reason to edit this page: AI cannot edit personally, and cannot reply to other people's edits. --MarkSweep(call me collect)18:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:Voice of All(MTG)-IP vandalism.VoiceofAllT|@|ESP21:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:BrownPigeon.Blocked sock puppet account ofuser:Marcuse,being vandalized by antagonistuser:Jonah Ayers,all related to "Biff Rose".-Willmcw02:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- after being vandalized 168 times, decided to semi-protect it.Owen×☎23:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:ERcheck- semiprotected following spate of defacements by AOL IP addresses.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:B1link82- blocked user. Protected on 12/30 byUser:Jpgordon.--Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:SlimVirginPermanently protected in early November aftermultiple bouts of rather horrifying vandalism,which started up again whenever the page was unprotected.Jayjg(talk)21:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protected[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
- User:Dijxtrasemi'd upon request following persistent vandal. -Splashtalk03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:Jason Gastrich- semi protected since 12/28 byUser:Voice of All.--Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:Naconkantari- SP since 1/1/06 byUser:Doc glasgow.--Woohookitty(cat scratches)11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:Alkivar- Semi protected.
- User:AMbroodEYper user request following persistent vandalism (9 times in quick succession).--May the Force be with you!Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:IAALmultiple IP vandalism, hopefully clear up soon.Dragons flight06:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:Irismeister- lots of problems from this banned user recently.Dmcdevit·t19:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:Mistress Selina Kylethis page was protected byFuzheadoon the 12 January.Prodegotalk00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleRecurring vandalism.≈ jossi ≈t•@19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleAttacks by open proxies, may be sockpuppets of blocked userUser:VinnyCee.--Nlu(talk) 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleBunch of vandalism, semi-protected byUser:Fuzheado,and I appreciate it. Based on pattern of vandalism, probably related to the vandalism ofUser:Nescioabove. --Nlu(talk) 07:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleInsults from various IPs, apparently same vandal as above.andy12:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Protected user subpages and boilerplates[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
Some users have created boilerplate pages in their user namespace and protected them from editing. The appropriateness of doing this is disputed.
- User:Blankfaze/Greet
- User:Blankfaze/VW
- User:David Newton/Bird Dispute
- User:Davidcannon/Biotable
- User:Davidcannon/Honours
- User:Davidcannon/Index-1
- User:Davidcannon/Index
- User:Dori/Copyrights
- User:Dori/Disclaimers
- User:Eloquence/Boilerplate texts
- User:Gerald Farinas/index
- User:Lupo/Do not copyvio
- User:Lupo/Img Src
- User:Lupo/Welcome
- User:Mkmcconn/sig
- User:Neutrality/Vandal
- User:Neutrality/Welcome
- User:Plato/Welcome
- User:Raul654/License
- User:Raul654/archive
- User:Redwolf24/Welcome
- User:Scott Burley/sig
- User:Silsor/Sam Hocevar
- User:Snoyes/boiler
- User:TShilo12/Welcome
- User:Taxman/Copyrights
- User:Thorpe/signature- user is done with this, doesn't intend to edit and it's widely transcluded.
- User:Cool Cat/Vandalismcounter
- User:Trödel/sig- At user request; not in current use, concerned about possible vandalism in regards to transclusions. Please contact me on my talk or via email before unprotecting.
- User:BD2412/Status- used for personal reasons; heading off great potential for mischief
User talk pages: Registered users[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
User talk pages should only be protected in cases of persistentvandalism,and then only for as brief a period as possible. Please use the template{{Usertalk-sprotect}} to mark such pages. This adds the page toCategory:Semi-protected user and user talk pages.
- ފަންވަތް:Article— temp. protected so that user can cool down and refrain adding further personal attacks. --Madchester18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article— blocked for one hour; personal attacks continue on the talk page, now protected. Someone else should look into it and implement unprotetion whenever they see fit.El_C01:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article— user blocked for a week for personal attacks, continued on his Talk page, so protection applied. To be removed at end of block.— MattCrypto16:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article.User banned by arbcom for a year, but exploits the mediawiki 1.5 misfeature to converse with sockpuppets.Thrydulf21:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- protected from the potential vandalism that the return of Wik/Gzornenplatz would almost certainly bring out. -Lucky 6.905:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleThe user has been banned for one year, but due to the block function's design he is still able to edit his talk page, which he blanked. To my knowledge, banning does not allow for any editing whatsoever, so there is no lgetimate reason forUser:Skyringto edit the page. -Willmcw00:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleIf you know who Tern is, you know why its protected.Redwolf24(talk) 23:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleperm banned user for various offenses ranging from posting a list of Jewish wikipedians to posting instructions on how to best disrupt wikipedia using open proxies.JtkieferT|@|C----- 20:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleBanned user MilkMan posting too many personal attacks on the user talk page.Zzyzx11(Talk)01:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleBanned by the ArbCom for one year for leagal treates, continued vandalism and legal threats as an IP on page.--nixie01:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- user has been permanently blocked from editing and their user talk page has become a gamut of threats against other users: have protected to stop others appearing. --Francs2000
00:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- indefinitely blocked sock puppet ofuser:Zephram Stark;was using his talk page after the block to continue stirring up trouble.SlimVirgin(talk)00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- using talk page after indefinite block for rantings and personal attacks.JtkieferT|@|C----- 18:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- indefinite blocked user, continuously ranting about the system and the admins.JtkieferT|@|C----- 20:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article– Indefinitely blocked troll (banned by admin consensus) who recently edited his own talk page in order to create the impression that he's still active. --MarkSweep✍07:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- legal threats (IP is blocked). --fvw*19:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- getting indefinitely blocked didn't appear to phase this user who just carried on regardless on their talk page --Francs2000
13:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleAnonymous IP repeatedly blanking page to remove warnings and notices from administrators.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleis the talk page of a permanently banned user who seems to still be able to edit the page and make threats. Not any more. Back to the wiki-vacation. -Lucky 6.920:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Article- blocked enviroknot sockpuppet posting rants and flames. —Charles P.(Mirv)23:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articlepermablocked impostor keeps changing this page into a redir.Owen×☎00:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleWas warned repeatedly not to blank talk page, but continued to do so. --Shanel02:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleblocked user continues offensive remarks on Talk page.Owen×☎23:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleTheNorth Carolina vandal,after his IP range (63.19.128.0/17) was shut down, changing the various warning notices to abusive this-and-that. Can be unprotected shortly since the range block will expire later tonight.Antandrus(talk)03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleis semiprotected because of an anon AOL ip vandal. The 15 minute blocks AOL's get doesn't seem to be discouraging the vandalism (nor did a 45) so trying this instead. Lifted protection from the talk page so test the waters. --Syrthiss19:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (updated, page has been protected since Jan 6th)
- ފަންވަތް:Articleis semiprotected for repeated removal/replacement by profanities of warnings and block notices. User indefinitely blocked byCurpsfor vandalism, and for 2 hours byLupin.--Arwel(talk) 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- User_talk:Nicodemus75- blocked user using his talk page for vicious personal attacks.Dmcdevit·t19:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- User_talk:Beckjordbeing used to continue to edit despite his one year arbcom ban.Dmcdevit·t23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- User talk:Zen-masterbeing used to continue to edit despite his one year arbcom ban.Dmcdevit·t23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- User talk:SPUI.User was give a short ban by arbitration committee for putting an unsuitable userbox on his userpage. During the ban, he has placed a copy of it on his talk page. This has been reverted and the page has been protected under a vprotect template. --Tony Sidaway23:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- User talk:Dschor,banned, as with the others.Dmcdevit·t07:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- User talk:Braaad,blocked indefinitely but still spewing hate on his talk page. —Guanaco18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalSockpuppet ofUser:Braaad,blocked indefinitely but soapboxing on page -- initially feigning ignorance but since then has unambiguously demonstrated sock puppetry. --Nlu(talk) 19:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalPersistent vandal regarding the unsafe time travel nonsense, blanking and leaving abusive messages on his talk page; by request.Antandrus(talk)23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleAttack by open proxies. Likely to be sock puppets of blocked userUser:VinnyCee.--Nlu(talk) 09:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:ArticleAttack by open proxies. Believed to be a sock ofUser:VinnyCee,--LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User talk pages: Anonymous users[އުނިއިތުރު ގެންނަވާ]
Talk pages of anonymous users should generally only be semi-protected. This prevents a vandal from blanking warnings etc., but still allows non-admin RC patrollers to issue warnings on this page. Please use the template{{vandal}} tag (replacing "" with "_" as appropriate).
- ފަންވަތް:Vandal- Offensive, threatening behaviour on talk page. Most recent edits are just a small example of previous behaviour - the most recent was reverted and I don't like to repeat what it said. --Francs2000
22:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)(semi-protected)Block expires 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalSemi protected due to vandalism by blocked anon.[[Sam Korn]]13:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalOffensive changing of warning messages, even after being blocked. Semiprotected. --BorgQueen06:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalBlocked this school ip for 36 hours yeserday and semi-protected talk page after persistent blanking. The IP has a (lengthy) history of this.SoLando(Talk) 09:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalFull protection. User is blocked one month.CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)07:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalVandal blocked until February 27 is blanking talk page.CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:Vandal- keeps blanking and putting pictures on his talk page, thus removing warnings. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)14:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalSoapboxing. Should be unprotected 14 Mar 2006, when block expires. --Nlu(talk) 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalSoapboxing. Should be unprotected 8 Aug 2006, when block expires. --Nlu(talk) 06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalVandalsim. Should be unprotected 36 hours from this posting when the block expires. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>07:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- ފަންވަތް:VandalSoapboxing. Should be unprotected 1 Mar 2006, when block expires. --Nlu(talk) 16:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)