The Wrong Version

The Wrong Version is the version of a page that is protected. There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the right version. If a page you are working on is protected on The Wrong Version, remember that it is essential that you inform the sysop that protected it that they protected The Wrong Version. You should point out the dreadful consequences of the page remaining on The Wrong Version, and insist they immediately revert to the right version. If they refuse, it is recommended that you ask for them to be de-sysopped. As a very minimum, you must list them on the problem users page. In addition, complaints should be made about the state of the page on en:Wikipedia:Protected page, the article's talk page, and the talk page of the sysop who protected it. You could also try emailing the sysop concerned, and even random sysops who you think might like to know about this dreadful occurrence. Remember that it is likely the sysop who protected The Wrong Version did this out of personal malice against you.

If you can find obscure policies that show how wrong the protected version is, then these should be brought to the community's attention. If Jimbo remarked on the issue at hand, or made a post 5 years ago to usenet that seems vaguely relevant, make sure to cite it. Equally, you should try to prove that version protected is actually the work of a vandal.

In the rare case that a page is protected on the right version, it is recommended you keep quiet. After all, you are probably wrong, as pages are always protected on The Wrong Version.

---

You can save time in your complaints by using the following boilerplate messages. All are based on actual examples.

1. You are not only acting in a gratuitously non-neutral manner over [article], you are also protecting a version with is not in line with en:Wikipedia:naming conventions (places)
2. [User] is a vandal. Please revert to the last edit by [user].
3. By freezing [article] in the form [user] is trying to impose on it, you are effectively taking his side in this dispute. I request that you put the article back the way it was the way before [user] started messing with it and then protect it.
4. I think however it would have been better to have protected it on the version before [user] [list the terrible things the other user did here]. [User]'s highly POV version is now left as the official Wikipedia version, unable to be corrected by anyone.
5. I request you to check out both versions and consider releasing the page as not doing so would be tantamount to rewarding [user] and his friends' aggressive editing.
6. We both know that it is no coincidence that you protected [user]'s version.
7. Obviously, you protected [user]'s version because you are both [religion] - deny it all you want.

---

Terminology to consider:

• Consensus version ("kon-sin-sus ver-jhin") - the version of a page that is not presently protected..
• POV without reference ("pee-oh-vee with-owt ref-rinse") - any addition made to a page recently unprotected, or about to be protected.
• Nazi ("nawt-see") - one who protects any page vaguely related to religion, or European geography, or edits any such page. Also, a Wikipedian with administrative rights.
• NPOV edit ("en-pee-oh-vee ed-it") - any change to a page made by you. Useful in edit summaries.

See also: Protected pages considered harmful, Edit wars

---

The alternative point of view is that a page is always protected on the right version as the version doesn't matter. It's locked to cause discussion or cause those involved to seek outside assistance from the community to resolve the disagreement. So do those things. Not with the sysop who locked it. :)

---

Can we just assign numbers to these so that people can save time and typing by just specifying, say, "you protected the wrong version, reason six?" It would be so much easier.

Sounds like a good idea. -- Tim Starling 08:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I'd like to add some additional recommendations for people who'd like to appeal such cases directly to me (Jimbo).

First, it's very important that you write me a minimum of 6 pages of text explaining and defending the version that you prefer. The more tedious detials, the better. I'm specifically keenly interested in the names of obscure rivers in Germany, er, I mean Poland, er, I mean Prussia. Also, be sure to write to me about the shape of bigfoot's head, I really am the person to make a decision about that.

Second, everyone knows that I make it a routine practice to force articles to read exactly the way that you like. I also ban longtime users and sysops whenever I feel like, just based on the say-so of people just like you. So be sure to ask for that.

Third, better yet, don't ask for it, demand it. Threaten to leave if I don't comply within 24 hours. That always works.

Fourth, if you happen to know that I'm personally politically sympathetic to your point of view, feel free to call your opponents names. For example, since I'm generally sympathetic to Israel, feel free to call anyone who has written anything critical of Israel a "Nazi". I'll get so excited that I'll probably ban them. Heck, I might even write new code in the software to only let you and people you approve edit the pages!

And finally, if for some insane reason I don't act on your wise proposals, tell everyone that you know that Wikipedia is all a scam to make money. It's a tool of capitalist oppression. It's a liberal playground with no standards. It's based on the principles of communism. It's collectivist. It's individualist. It's useless. It's the most important thing in the world, except for me screwing it up. That'll show old Jimbo who he's messing with!

Jimbo Wales 13:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)