Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 447:
::::::If the vandal were merely annoying those of us who monitor the Ref Desk pages, then I would agree that protection (half or whole) would be the proverbial "elephant gun to a sparrow". However, [[Ellen Page]] is a real person and the vandal is bandying her name about in inappropriate contexts. That's what we need to stop, not just revert. And to preempt the response that the vandal is not saying anything negative about Ms Page, we don't know how countless repetitions of her name and/or silly responses to even sillier fake questions will affect her. Our happiest course is to prevent it from happening at all, as best we can. [[User:Bielle|Bielle ]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 00:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I disagree. When we semiprotect, we basically shut off the desks to a significant portion of its ''users'' as well as several (regular and non-regular) answerers. For someone who wants to ask a question, this is effectively the same as there not being a refdesk - so the equivalent article space response would be to delete the article (shutting it off from its users). I know that BLP issues are serious but our job here is to ask and answer questions - protecting random young Canadian starlets is secondary. I think Ellen Page will get along just fine without the semiprotection - the refdesks will not. [[Special:Contributions/Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] ([[User talk:Zain Ebrahim111|talk]]) 07:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
===And now Humanities===
| |||