Talk:Jim Walsh

Semi-Protection

_ Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pieface007 serves as documentation-central re the vandalism of the accompanying Dab page by (apparently) a single user, whose first registration seems to have been as User:Pieface007. (The Cat does not yet fulfill that role -- isn't it redundant to clarify my meaning with the word "completely"? -- bcz i haven't tracked down, and what is more demanding, evaluated, blocked, and fully tagged, the earliest IP addresses used in the vandalism, but IMO opening disc'n of semi-protection is more urgent.) The vandalism is burdensome to the conscientious editors who have been thoro & prompt in reverting it, and may suggest to others that they can eventually tire out the vand patrollers and get visibility for their personal PoVs on "a remarkable achievement of humanity" (according, last week, to the boss at Google Inc.).
_ Temporary semi-protection will force IP users who want to edit this particular Dab page to register as users, and stick to editing other things for four days -- or however much longer it takes them to accumulate ten edits. (Or longer and more edits, if they are using Tor proxies.)
_ I'll wait a few days for objections before applying the semi-prot.
_ Per policy, temporary semi-protection is being proposed, with the expectation that it has a good chance of stopping the vandalism. It would of course be repeated if a single period of semi-prot is effective only in delaying further vand, and eventually escalated if repeated semi-prot is not effective on the long term. Personally, i have in mind a month initially, and if several repetitions fail, semi-prot for a length of time equal to the full span of time between the first vand'm attributed to the vand'l and whatever is then the most recent period of vand'm.
--Jerzy•t 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tacit consensus has been demonstrated. In the meantime, the vandal 79.67.61.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has reinserted the rejected and undefended Dab entry, blanked Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pieface007, and then removed the Dab entry. I have semi-protected that Cat page.
  In the long run, even self-reverted vandalism should not be tolerated (and we have seen some of it before on the accompanying page, so it does not necessarily imply them abandoning vandalism), but pending any objections expressed on this talk pg, i'm delaying semi-prot of the accompanying Dab long enuf to see if anything interesting develops -- on the principle that when the alternatives differ insignificantly in expected value, the one among them that offers the most interesting possible results is to be preferred.
  --Jerzy•t 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  
  • Well, i guess that counts as interesting: a presumable POINT violation, without any actual corruption of information. I'm putting the entries back into chronological order, and applying semi-prot. If the vandal wants to accept the difference between "anyone can edit" and "anyone can do anything they want without countering the objections" -- and become an editor -- it's a good time for them to request unblocking of Pieface007 (or start a new acct that suits them, if they prefer), and show up on this talk page.
    --Jerzy•t 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    

, I trust your judgement, Jerzy. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of this talk page

This talk page is protected against IP vandalism for 24 hours, to permit discussion of longer semi-prot.
--Jerzy•t 18:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the opportunity for rational discussion has well and truly passed. Needs to be semi'd for a month at least, and if it continues after that, more. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'll proceed with other measures as well.
  But i see you've re-protected this talk page, rather than the Dab. Since only one at a time of the two may be protected, do you not see the Dab as a higher priority on the month-ish time scale?
  --Jerzy•t 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  

I saw the consistent blanking of the talk page as more disruptive than what's been happening at the main page. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I take your point.
  --Jerzy•t 16:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)