http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University was office
protected. Editors had gathered some well-cited material, Jimbo said
go ahead and rewrite, so we did. It got hacked back again. I don't
have a problem with this, as Brad has now old us what the concern was,
and we can work with that. I do have a problem with a couple of
elements of process:
The most important thing is for us to be told what the complaint was
so we can fix it. All that would take is a quick message from Danny on
the talk page - surely he can make time for that?
And where an external source (in this case Bear's
Guide) says that two
institutions are run by the same people out of the same address, and
no known sources say otherwise, but the subject insists they are
different, how do we go about validating that? It's all very well for
them to say they are different, but surely that gets {{fact}}?
If there is a reliable source stating the information, and it's
properly referenced, any complaint should be responded to with a
simple "Sorry you feel this way, but we have reliable sources for the
information in the article. If you believe our sources are mistaken,
please provide alternative sources. Thank you." - there is no need for
any office protection in such a case.