Steve Bennett wrote:
If semi-protection stops vandalism happening in the first place, great!
With all due respect, that's a stupid position. By logical extension of it we'd semi-protect all articles. Then we'd notice that vandalism still happened, so we'd fully protect all articles ('great, it stops vandalism happening in the first place!').
Page protection of any kind is against what the whole project stands for. It's a *necessary* evil, but people need to remember that it's still evil.
Cheers,
N.