User talk:IRP/ArticlesForCreation/Wikipedia:Requests for talk page editing disablement

When a user talk page is being abused, rather than reblocking the user to remove the ability to edit their talk page, I have in the past simply protected the page. I have seen other admins do this as well. Doing one over the other is both messier and neater depending on how you look at. Reblocking creates a larger block log (which log figures larger in a particular user's future than does the protection log of their talk page if they aren't being blocked indefinitely) and it also requires you to recalculate the block time, though also only if the user is not blocked indefinitely. However protection stops further comments by all parties, not just the blocked user. The question then is: is protection a problem? How often does it come up that protecting a blocked user's talk page stops further comment by third parties? And relatedly, how often does this come up where the user is only temporarily blocked? The thing is, I think most of the time such talk page abuse arises is for the indefinite ilk, for which there's little reason I can see for further talk page comments, and who cares what their block log looks like? As such, this may be either redundant to WP:RFPP, or not high enough traffic to warrant a stand alone page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)