" 

  

  
 == Proposal to stop the majority of the vandalism == 

 I have a simple, yet intriguing solution to this vandal problem, where people keep writing ""You suck!"" on the article.  Why dont we just simply make a redirect page, where people can write in ""You suck!"" all they want on the article.  Then, of course, if there are people that actually want to view the article, they can simply click at the link on the top to view the actual article. 

 I still believe that we should use protection, of course, but I do believe that this proposal will stop the majority of the vandalism from happening.   
 :Aside from the fact that the software doesn't contain any feature allowing people to do this (as far as I know), this is an encyclopedia and not a sandbox for vandals.   

 I don't think this would solve anything. People would still vandalize the main page anyway. No one wants to vandalize something if they're allowed to. People vandalize things because it makes others mad or frustrated. We would be better off banning users who do it, or possibly suggest the page be given full protection. 22 August 2008  —Preceding undated comment was added at   

 :::::Though most vandals do it to make people mad. I think this case is just an on going joke. The people that put ""You Suck"" on this article see the video and come in here to try it. They don't know or care about AR. I think protecting the page is not a good idea. It takes away from the  base of Wikipedia. The ability to come in and add new information at will. Wikipedia has enough moderators they can watch this article for ""You Suck""  Heck Wikipedia has enough bots doing work, make one that watches this article for ""You Suck"".    
 ::::::That's a good idea.  I wonder if bots have the power to suspend editing privileges?    

 This isn't the only problem. I've seen people replacing the White & Nerdy page with the same sentence, probably because the video for that song is what sparked this wave of vandalism on both pages.    
 :I say we just protect these pages.   
 Can we at least semi-protect it?   
 :Can this article be semi-protected again?    
 ::I've put the semiprotection back since it's clear the vandalism hasn't died down.   

 Is there still agreement that this should be an article focused on the Atlantic Record label, and that replacing content with troll memes should be treated as blatant vandalism?      

 :If you're asking if there is a consensus to block IPs on sight without warning for making one edit, no there is not such a consensus and never can be. If somebody vandalizes this page, warn them, and if they continue, then they should be blocked. There's nothing special about this article that requires making exceptions to WP:BLOCK (such as blocking IPs for 10 days, four hours after they stopped editing or after just one edit). -    
 ::I think this talk page should be semi-protected as well.  It's obviously getting vandalized as well.    
 :::Talk pages are generally left open except in severe cases