Last modified: 2005-07-12 18:13:15 UTC
It seems that the Admin-functionality "Paeg Protection" does not work correctly. I see again and again that IP-Userpages protected by me can be edited by normal users without problem. I protected 22:30, 4. Jul 2005, but it was possible 22:41, 6. Jul 2005, to edit page for an IP user. (<http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:195.93.60.9&action=history>) Pls also see [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:195.93.60.103] When I click "edit page", that will work without any problem, Ther wil be no message like "This page is write protected and can only be edited by Admins), even in my Admin-Functions I can only see "Schutz aufheben" (= remove protection), what seems to say that that page is still protected as per [http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial%3ALog&type=protect&user=Rainer+Bielefeld&page=]
Is this because you checked the "protect this page only against moves" box? Can you confirm that you have *not* checked this box?
I am rather sure that I did not check that box.
I just did a protection as a test, and it seems to work fine. As non-logged-in in another browser I can't edit the page and am presented with the view source display. Here's the record for the page you cited above: page_id: 780946 page_namespace: 2 page_title: 195.93.60.103 page_restrictions: move=sysop page_counter: 0 page_is_redirect: 0 page_is_new: 1 page_random: 0.521755728972 page_touched: 20050703090641 page_latest: 7396026 page_len: 32 It's marked as protected against moves only. I'm _pretty sure_ that this is just a matter of people being used to checking a confirmation checkbox that is no longer present, and now checking the 'protect against moves only' box instead. I'll see about redesigning the form; it's pretty cruddy the way it is. For now, can you try unprotecting the page and reprotecting it, carefully watching the procedure you follow?
It really sounds feasible that I checked the box mechanically without percipience. I made some further tests and was not able to reproduce any misfunction I will watch that and reopen this bug, if I see that the problem really exists, but currently I believe you should close it (or make it "enhancement").
Closing due to Additional Comment #4 From Rainer Bielefeld
*** Bug 2823 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
