Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive

This page is for archiving content from Project:User ban nominations.

Older discussions

User:IBobiEdit

User:IBobi: does not seem to share our goals as evidenced by behaviour at Wikitravel for several months and, recently, here too. -- Alice 07:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Clarification: My nomination is only in respect of the registered user account User:IBobi and no other. Separate nominations, in a separate section or sections, are required to ban any other abusive IBadmins. Please note that banning Users has historically only been used as a last resort for cases of extreme actual or potential harm to our project. -- Alice 23:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. I'm broadening this nomination to encompass Internet Brands entirely—anyone working on its behalf should not edit here, which is made crystal clear at Wikivoyage:No real world threats. The lawsuits are still up in the air (the most important one being the WMF suit for declaratory relief against further IB suits against our contributors). After all lawsuits are resolved, IB accounts can petition for the block to be removed, although I'm not terribly clear what constructive role IB accounts could be used for even then. Anyway, the less time spent on this the better. --Peter Talk 07:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I support this block, too. I've been following IBobi's posts in his user talk page - and his improper reverts of others' replies. I'm quite surprised that he's decided to waste his time this way, in order to waste our time. Because being a time-waster and annoyance appears to be his only reason for being here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support I have documents which state that IBobi edits as a representative of IB. With IB having launched legal attacks and not stating that they will not do so again all IB employees should have their editing privileges restricted. No time to feed the trolls.Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • From some old notes of mine (yes, IB has spammed Wikipedia in a highly abusive manner), we have the ranges:
  • 67.201.16.0/23
  • 98.158.192.0/20
  • 205.205.28.0/25
  • 207.212.172.0/22
All of these belong to IB or its subsidiaries. These should be safe to block for a long period of time, the spam incident was 2.5 years ago. MER-C (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. IB* seems to be a role account, in the sense that it's being misused to edit not on behalf of an individual, but on behalf of a corporation to advance interests directly contrary to those of the project. I see nothing of value being contributed from these userid's nor the associated IP's. K7L (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I hoped that the relation with IB would cool down after the heat of the last months. Sadly Paul seems only to be interested in fueling discussions and enlarge the existing deviations between the community. I think it is best to block disruptive commercial users. We are volunteers and do have a private life, which i prefer not to waste with destructive edits. Jc8136 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support IBobi has never contributed any original content to WT, so it is difficult to expect that he makes useful edits here. His recent behavior was highly obnoxious and requires a permanent ban. --Alexander (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - IBobi is clearly being disruptive here on Wikivoyage. sumone10154(talk) 00:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Mere disruption for the sake of disruption. We're way past done with that. -- Cjensen (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment IBobi was blocked from the English Wikipedia on similar grounds a few weeks ago. He didn't meet the "community ban" threshold of our site, as he is definitely not the worst user that we've seen, but the community consensus at the public discussion was to ban him. Link to discussion. He's also engaged in disruptive behavior at Meta, but they're more relaxed about that sort of thing. --Rschen7754 02:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Also noting disruptive post: [1] --Rschen7754 23:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • That's a different troll trying to have fun with the corporate vs wiki drama. --Peter Talk 23:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. IBobi apparently only wants posting privileges in an attempt to disrupt. Comments made by him about this being a copycat site not going anyplace just enforces my opinion that he only intends to disrupt. TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's been three days. IBobi's indefinite ban is confirmed. Block has already been applied. LtPowers (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. What about inserting {{block}} template on the user page of IBobi? --Saqib (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems you only just created it, so I don't believe we have any consensus to use such templates at this time. Remember, blocks are an extremely rare occurrence, and I don't think there's any point to drawing attention to it. LtPowers (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

UpdateEdit

See also Special:Contributions/Harlan888 and Special:Contributions/Wikivoyager2015. Since the block of IBobi more than two years ago I was skeptical that IB was still editing here, and even more skeptical that they were creating new user accounts for the purpose of trolling - for example, I figured Harlan888 was just a run-of-the-mill troll trying to get a rise out of us - but a junk article that had been on WT for nearly two years was cited in the Wikivoyage talk:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel#Article count comparision discussion, User:Wikivoyager2015 was created here today at 22:34 UTC, the junk article was deleted on WT by IBobi at 22:36 UTC [2], and at 22:40 UTC Wikivoyager2015 commented in that thread with the usual complaints about a lack of WT link in the footer, despite the diff-by-diff attribution of every author in the article history and linked attribution via user pages. Unless the timing is truly an incredible coincidence, this seems like fairly conclusive evidence that it actually is IB that's trolling us. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Range block of Internet BrandsEdit

Per MER-C's comment above, I was interested to hear what others think of a range block of IB's ips, as documented on Wikipedia. --Peter Talk 17:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit, I think policy is straightforward enough where there isn't question as to whether IB ips are allowed to edit here—they're not. What I'm less sure of (since I'm no IT guy), is whether a range block of the ranges above might a) accidentally block anyone else or b) be ineffective. --Peter Talk 06:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
In the event that it happens, you can give the IP-block exempt flag to any affected registered users. The CheckUser tool may also be helpful here, but you would need to elect a CheckUser or contact the stewards on Meta for assistance. (I can't guarantee that they would accept a request, as I'm not 100% familiar with the relevant policies. I do know that they will not accept a request to connect a user account with an IP address, though). w:en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision#Church_of_Scientology_IP_addresses_blocked describes a similar scenario, so this isn't unprecedented for a WMF wiki. --Rschen7754 05:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

SupportEdit

  • Support. The "no real world threats" policy obviously applied to this company. -- Cjensen (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This is clearly the same pointless abuse pouring in from multiple IP's or userid's. Compare Special:Contributions/98.158.206.105 to Special:Contributions/98.158.206.108 to Special:Contributions/IBobi, for instance, and a pattern emerges. A pattern that suggests a rangeblock. K7L (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support to keep them out of our hair at least when they are at work, nothing draconian in that, it is just sensible. --Rogerhc (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. There is enough disruption coming from them. --Alexander (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - edit-warring and being disruptive sumone10154(talk) 21:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree that the no real world threats obviously applies here. I would be a lot more comfortable with a temporary range block though, 3 or 6 months for instance, and then extend or make permanent if necessary. —The preceding comment was added by Sertmann (talkcontribs)
  • Support time to write a travel guide Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think it is to the benefit of both groups. --Inas (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

  1. Too much of a scatter gun approach. I'm concerned that (perhaps understandable) blind hatred of IB and all its works are causing us to significantly change from our previous enlightened and practical stance as evidenced by many years discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits. In any case, why wouldn't we wish to receive edits that advance our goals from "civilian" or off-duty members of IB, however unlikely that may be. On the same tack, I deprecate the "piggy-backing" of other IB users on to my nomination above of User:IBobi. Each proposed ban should specify a specific and unique user so that the nomination is discussed on its merits. No labelling and "birds of a feather" smearing here please! (Personally, I really find the lack of due process and precipitate and premature action disturbing here) -- Alice 23:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Off-duty IB employees would not be editing from IB ips. --Peter Talk 22:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar with IB terms of employment (and I suspect you aren't either, Peter) but it is not unheard of for employees to use their employers' internet connections during lunch or work breaks or even - shock, horror - during times they should only be engaged on their employers' business. I really don't see the need to modify long-standing alternative policies and feed the trolls in this way. -- Alice 00:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's more ridiculous: your argument here or the fact that I'm feeding you ;) --Peter Talk 06:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
They have sued members of this community which has cost the movement a fair bit of money. The last thing we need is for them to continue harassing us. The best thing at this point is distance. All leave the other side alone. This block will help.Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ResultEdit

  • It's been three days, so this nomination passes. Anyone know the ranges we should block? LtPowers (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I have blocked the four ranges (stored in the block log) recommended by MER-C above, after double checking that they are indeed IB or IB subsidiaries that have been "active" on Wikimedia projects. --Peter Talk 03:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

166.137.208.*Edit

This range is Cingular/AT&T Wireless and multiple anon-IP addresses in it are being used for trolling, Special:Contributions/166.137.208.18, Special:Contributions/166.137.208.21, Special:Contributions/166.137.208.22, Special:Contributions/166.137.208.29 and Special:Contributions/166.137.208.43 so far - all reverting the same edits. At least one IP in this range is blocked already, but this may be dynamic enough that it needs a range block. I'm not sure if this is someone posting from a mobile 'phone because their landline IP is already blocked, but it may be worth blocking anon-IP edits (only) from this block of mobile devices if this continues K7L (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - the edit warring needs to stop. sumone10154(talk) 01:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose... sort of. I don't think we need any sort of long-term block for this ip range (long term range blocks should be exceedingly rare, for truly extreme cases like the IB fiasco. This edit warring vandal isn't too exotic, and short term range blocks should be fine—my longest one so far has been 6 hours. It seems I'm the only one instating them, so in my absence, please copy my range block, admins. --Peter Talk 02:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Short-term blocks on trolls are fine and blocking IB's addresses at least until all lawsuits are settled seems sensible. However, blocking this range seems to me a very bad idea. There could be significant collateral damage, blocking other users in the same range, and it won't necessarily stop a troll; all they need do is use a proxy. We should not block proxies; they may be the only way for users in some countries to read or edit. Pashley (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Just for reference: open proxies are globally locked on sight by stewards. For users editing from dictatorial countries we use to give out global IP-block exempt on request, these requests can be made on meta with ease since meta is not affected by global blocks. So, don't care of proxies and Internet censorship, or better, don't care of them as a single community but rather together with the whole Wikimedia's community. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. While collateral damage is likely with such a range-block, I feel as though this range's contributions are not useful to the project, and we would be better off without them. Do not block indefinitely, but for a long period (1 year perhaps). This, that and the other (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This range appears to include 166.137.208.* and 166.137.209.*, based on additional IP's in the block which were trolling after the original nomination was made as 166.137.208.* K7L (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let's go with short blocks for awhile rather than possibly blocking innocent users. Would reconsider if it becomes a long-term problem. -- Cjensen (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As I suspect this range is being used to circumvent the block of IBobi and for continued trolling (over a month later), I have blocked it for the day. --Peter Talk 20:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have confirmation that this range is being used for block evasion. While I am very leery of long-term range blocks, I have taken the unusual step of blocking for a month for the launch. I left ip talk pages unblocked. Ditto --Peter Talk 20:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. For the reasons outlined by Peter --Inas (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • comment - I ran a check on my own via checkuser and I found no legit anon-users in the whole /23, so any block for anons within that range is supposed to have no side-effects. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Other IPsEdit

During the RfC on meta we had these IPs opposing:

  • 64.183.42.67 - Los Angeles, CA
  • 76.171.30.1 - Los Angeles, CA
  • 98.154.135.180 - Reseda, CA (LA area)
  • 67.121.110.182 - Irvine, CA (LA area)
  • 76.95.1.130 - Placentia, CA (LA area)
  • 76.167.153.64 - Santa Monica, CA (LA area)
  • 24.24.230.95 - El Segundo, CA (LA area)

Not sure if they would be related to IB but I assume so. [3] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

They aren't. They belong to the same ISP though. MER-C (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Are they related at all to the IPs causing issues in the pub? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
24.whatever is usually a cable modem (that block was the former @home.com) while 166.137.208.* and 166.137.209.* appear to be Cingular/AT&T mobile 'phones. It's possible that someone is using a mobile device to troll after already being blocked on another address, but the IP's won't be the same block as these are different providers. K7L (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reasons given in previous section. Pashley (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I took a look with my magic glasses here and on meta and I found nothing interesting. So, I'd suggest to avoid preventive blocks which will likely have no results at all. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - have any of these IPs edited Wikivoyage? If not, I don't see the reason to block them. sumone10154(talk) 20:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose concerned they may be dynamic. --Rschen7754 21:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:John DakerEdit

Crosswiki vandal who was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia: see luxo:John Daker. Has started vandalism here. Also see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Daker. As you can see from that, he has created a lot of socks on the English Wikipedia... --Rschen7754 20:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also has been blocked for 2 days hours as a temporary measure. --Rschen7754 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The account has been locked by m:User:Vituzzu, but I'd like to leave this up so that all of his socks will fall under the ban. --Rschen7754 21:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
For us WVers, could you explain what a lock means? Does that basically amount to a global block? --Peter Talk 21:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
A lock is performed by a m:Steward. It is a global block, but even worse: he can't even log in. --Rschen7754 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
An account lock is a 'toggle' placed on an account by a steward on meta that prevents the user to log on into the affected global account. It has some peculiar characteristis that differentiate it from a true global block: it is indefinite in duration (that is, it has no autoexpiry), it does not block the underlaying IPs, it prevents the user from accessing the account in any way (hence no API, no emails, no talk page, not even just reading with his settings; he is forcefully logged out and receives a fairly obscure - I always forget if that got fixed - message preventing him from logging back it). Currently Wikimedia has no true global block for accounts, only for IPs. Regards, Snowolf How can I help? 00:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the archiving, as his socks will clearly come back (one came back today). --Rschen7754 04:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So, what, we just have to leave this up here forever? Once he's blocked, his socks can be blocked without further discussion. LtPowers (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
He was never blocked locally; the account was locked on Meta. --Rschen7754 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Blocked, banned, locked; same effect. LtPowers (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not. Those are three different conditions, tools and effects. A block is a technical tool in the power of administrators for disabling a user's ability to edit. In its normal settings, it allows the user to still discuss on their talk page (such as asking for clarifications, saying it might be a mistake, or saying they would not do so again) and applies an auto-block on the user's underlying IP. A ban is a community decision to disallow the user from editing on the project with any account or IP. It is implemented by administrators thru block, and it is generally reserved for established contributors, where community input is required. A lock is a technical tool available to Stewards thru meta that disable a user's login access (see above for its implications). It is used only in the direst and less collateral damage-prone of cases as it does not allow the user to appeal their sanction easily, nor are they notified of the reasons of the lock. It also does not apply an autoblock. Snowolf How can I help? 19:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say they were the same thing; I said they had the same effect, here, on Wikivoyage. We don't block people unless they're banned, and a lock is as good as a block in this case. Are you suggesting that we should also block him in addition to the global lock? LtPowers (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Well the big thing is the autoblock. Until there's CU data to globally block the IP, a block with autoblock is an effective local solution :) Say, you run across John Daker 2013. I'd say that the most effective thing would be yes, reporting to the stewards to get it locked, but at the same time it makes sense to block before with the autoblock, to at least slow down future socks. Snowolf How can I help? 19:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, since we're currently violating local policy to block his socks as there is no local consensus for a ban, it would be nice to have a local ban. --Rschen7754 19:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I would say that if his account is locked globally, that is sufficient to constitute a de facto ban on Wikivoyage. LtPowers (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but that's not in local policy. --Rschen7754 20:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It may not be encoded, since that facility wasn't available previously, but I think it's in line with existing practice. LtPowers (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No, because the stewards make the determination as to who gets locked, not the local community. So you're accusing me of admin abuse for violating this policy, but now when I try to uphold it, you're endorsing a violation of this policy? What gives? --Rschen7754 21:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I have not accused anyone of admin abuse, certainly not you. LtPowers (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, then what would you consider [4]? --Rschen7754 22:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I was pointing out that Snowolf would be in violation of policy if he didn't do one of the two things I suggested. LtPowers (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I think we're moving towards a new policy of indef blocking accounts that are clearly made for the sole purpose of vandalism, and nominations won't be needed in the future for these types of blocks. --Peter Talk 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not sure I agree with Peter, but the reasons for this block appear convincing. --Inas (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I would like to emphasise that my support for a User ban in this extreme case is not a voice in support of changing the principle of getting community consensus for both bans and blocks of more than a short duration — in extremis, in arrears. If the cases are as egregious as this one, then that consensus should be very streamlined to obtain in practice. -- Alice 07:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Notice; I just indef-blocked a sock of this user who had made five edits comporting with the pattern described at w:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/John Daker. LtPowers (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    Locked and found another sock, likewise locked. Snowolf How can I help? 22:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    I also blocked User:Huff Daland Dusters, which was a latent sock obviously created a the same time. We'll need a checkuser to determine any other socks accounts. LtPowers (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    I had already locked and checked that account yeah. I have now locked all tagged previous accounts. Snowolf How can I help? 23:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    Tagged? LtPowers (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    Tagged on the English Wikipedia, that is. While the stewards have locked all known accounts and blocked as many past IPs as possible, I'm sure he will be back. --Rschen7754 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: I am active on several wikis. On Citizendium, I have had to deal with users banned at WP for bias arriving at CZ, baggage and all, for more non-constructive viewpoint-laden editing, then emitting howls of protest when called on it. At Rational Wiki, I see drive-by trolls coming over from other sites, especially Conservapedia. As I see it, being able to quickly block cross-wiki vandals, spammers & trolls is yet another advantage of the move to WMF. We are already doing much better than WT at spam control, I think largely because of that. Pashley (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think cross-wiki vandals deserve a short stop. jan (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - There are several other users listed at w:en:WP:LTA that would also be considered banned from here too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/195.194.14.6Edit

Vandalism-only IP, which has been actively doing so for almost a month. Embarrassingly for us, their malicous edits to the Hull article remained on Wikivoyage for 15 days. --SU FC 17:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for six months on Wikipedia, so I've applied the same block here per Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#Users_blocked.2Fbanned_on_other_WMF_sites. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/203.219.242.183Edit

I'm not sure where else to post about a 1-week block, so I'm posting here. This user was blocked for 1 day on Feb. 4, 3 days on Feb. 5, and the next step was 7 days. The user seems to post nothing but garbage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, it's probably okay to keep doubling it, as it's an IP. --Rschen7754 06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree. I don't expect a change in behavior, but I'm fine with just ratcheting up the period of blockage each time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/120.72.90.34Edit

Per /Archive#Special:Contributions/120.72.90.34.

This user has found us at our new home. Any argument against reinstating the rolling three-month blocks? Or, given the consistency of IP address for this user, maybe we should just block it indefinitely? LtPowers (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Big waster of our time. I think forever is not too long a time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Pashley (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Typically WMF sites don't indefinitely block any IP, since IPs can change hands, but a block of 1-2 years might seem appropriate for long-term abuse. --Rschen7754 17:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There are some instances of indefinite IP blocks, for example w:da:Wikipedia:Blokering af uregistrerede brugere fra danske grundskoler, which says that you may not edit Danish Wikipedia from certain Danish schools without logging in. However, I agree that it is problematic since IP addresses can change. It sounds better to set a temporary block which expires after a couple of years. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This IP address appears to be from a dynamic pool, so an indefinite block is probably not optimal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Peter has proposed updating policy to allow blocks of increasing lengths without the need for nomination for touts (after initial talk page warnings). If the last block of this IP was for three months, then a six month block, followed by a 9-12 month block, etc would seem reasonable. That ensures we don't permanently block an IP, but also saves us from having to have this discussion each time the IP re-appears. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rolling six months because of possibility of IP use by others. I assume that any user from this IP will still be able to post to that specific IP's talk page? Amazes me why they can not be educated as to how they can helpfully and successfully market here by following our guidelines! -- Alice 06:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I only suggested the indef because this particular user seems to use the IP exclusively, and the IP is never used by anyone else. I'm fine with continuing our regular block pattern. LtPowers (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

User:JejumasterEdit

I blocked this user for 2 hours to get his attention because xe keep on repeating copyright violations. My aim is to get his attention. --Saqib (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

User:W. FrankEdit

Frank was already blocked on 7 Oct 2012 for causing drama with several users. His user page leaves rich traces of his defiance of our policies and the repect for this community. Several edit summaries e.g. https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage_talk%3ADeletion_policy&diff=2420010&oldid=2419884 and https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germany&diff=2410811&oldid=2410744 are prove for that.

Yesterday Frank made a big effort to cause complete disrespect for the community and the editors in the Talk:Northern_Ireland#Citizenship discussion. Even the kindest bridges to find a consensus have been sniffed away by him. I have been personally accused of Talk:Northern_Ireland#Abuse_of_administrators_privileges which was obviously untrue. I think Frank needs a wiki-break and suggest a three day ban. jan (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of any precedent for banning a contributor for a set length of time. Either we want the user around to continue contributing, or we don't; what good does a three-day block do? Keep in mind, per policy, user bans are a last resort. That wording doesn't seem to comport with "see you in three days". LtPowers (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The issues that have led to a ban nomination primarily relate to incivility and an inability (or unwillingness) to respect the opinions of others. As Jan notes there have been numerous requests not engage in personal attacks, not to edit war, etc. Similarly, too often when Frank disagrees with others he stubbornly pushes his viewpoint, dismissing the validity of the opinions he disagrees with, something that undermines the entire process of a wiki as a collaboratively-developed site. At this point I would not object to blocks of increasing length being applied if those behaviors continue (and yes, I think this is a case where starting with a three day block for the next offense makes sense). Frank makes some good contributions at times, but the value of those contributions is not worth creating a hostile/difficult environment for other editors and I think we've reached a point where blocks really are the last option available. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
LtPowers, the 5 IPs mentioned in the subsection immediately above this one were blocked for 3 days. Whether that constitutes a "ban" or not seems semantic to me - I would consider it a suspension, but it nevertheless constitutes a precedent. And my feeling is, yes, we (or at least I) want Frank to continue contributing; we'd just like him to be more temperate and collegial. If a compromise is needed, one possibility is, if Frank is not engaging in any actively hostile behavior right now, this proposed ban, once agreed to, could be held in abeyance until the next offense. But I will note that Frank continued to behave intemperately in Talk:Northern Ireland after I urged him to get a hold of himself (see User talk:W. Frank), so I will not oppose this proposed block taking effect before another offense if there is a consensus behind it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
IPs are blocked temporarily because we don't want innocent people caught up in the ban. No such restriction applies to user accounts. LtPowers (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This surely would not be the first time a registered account was banned for more than 24 hours and less than indefinitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@LtPowers: An other good example is Egypt https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Egypt&action=history where Frank didn't accept any other edit than his version. User:Mahmudmasri tried to improve the article. Do you want to wait until Frank has scared an other new user? I don't see any change in his attitude despite several reminders from Ikan and you on his talk page. I see the three day ban as a warning before a longer block. How do you want to change the situation? I think we already lost good contributors and i want that the community can develop and is not focussed on a super ego that does not care about others. jan (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm only aware of two occasions in which a block/ban for behaviour on-wiki has been considered in this forum. The other was for ee. The resolution there was for month ban. I think ultimately that solution worked.
While we're doing to 360 degree review of W.Frank, some feedback from me. I hope all take it in the spirit intended. At the end of the day, we're just a travel wiki.
I don't have time to keep up with all of W.Frank's edits. And still, after so many years of contributing, every single one has to be reviewed, because it could be a good travel edit, it could be a good copyedit, or it could equally well be pushing some marginal position through an entire set of articles. Quite often, it is a mixture of all three that has to be disentangled. I'm convinced overall, unfortunately, that even though you can point to some excellent changes, the net contribution to the project is negative. Because every edit has to be monitored, and every change to a policy page has to be argued.
My position here, because I can't monitor this user, is to support those people who've put the effort into doing so. So, personally, I'd request that Frank just take some time off, and return to the project at a slower and more focussed pace. I don't think anyone cares how fast you add listings or travel info. By policy changes and discussions of reverts have to happen over hours and days, not minutes. More of what we saw in the New Zealand reorg, and forget the ad hominem. It would be nice to think it could be by agreement, and we wouldn't need an enforceable block. However, I won't oppose a block if that is required.
I don't see the sockpuppet theories as relevant (not that they've been discussed here). Alice and W.Frank make exactly the same style of edits, and argue the same points, on the same side, in the same way. Two users/one user - doesn't matter. All the comments above apply equally whether they are different or the same. --Inas (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I just realized that I don't think I replied fully to LtPowers' comment above: I would strongly oppose an indefinite ban on Frank's account at this time, if that's what you're suggesting, and I hope no-one is proposing that. I will not oppose a consensus for a relatively short suspension, as I explained above, but I certainly oppose longer than a 3-day suspension at this time. You seem to be suggesting that if we want Frank to continue contributing, he should never be suspended for any amount of time, and if we have a problem with some of the things he does, we should ban him forever right now. But all or nothing are not the only options. Frank is a very active user who does a lot of good janitorial work but, as Inas mentions, mixes unapproved things like upright thumbnail dimensions and inline WP links into some of those edits, and also participates sincerely but often with excessive passion in discussions of policy, and then gratuitously ignores policies when the discussion doesn't go his way. Frank can be greatly annoying to many people who happen to disagree with him on any number of different things. Being annoying, sometimes downright hostile and insulting, and quite intemperate at times is justification for a suspension but it is not a sufficient reason for an immediate permanent ban, in my opinion - a permanent ban really is a last resort. If Frank is suspended for a day or three and returns more relaxed and constructive, great. If he acts intemperate again, we can revisit that then. I should say that I personally have had respectful interactions with Frank, and we have worked together to achieve satisfactory outcomes on various occasions, so this isn't about me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I recall EdmontonEnthusiast volunteering to take a one-month break. If Frank wants to volunteer for a break, so much the better. But I just don't understand what a 3-day block is intended to accomplish. What is the supposed mechanism by which a short block is intended to produce better behavior? I believe we should only be undertaking bans to protect the wiki against the truly incorrigible. If you believe Frank is acting in good faith and can be brought around, then I don't understand how a block is intended to accelerate that. And if you believe he's acting in bad faith and cannot be 'reformed', then just indef him now and be done with it. LtPowers (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
ee voluntarily took a one month break, with the alternative being that one month sanction/ban --Inas (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You make some good points. And the difficulty is that there may be elements of both good and bad faith. For example, I do believe that Frank has good-faith opinions about matters of policy, but when he loses arguments, he has often ignored the policies and violated them, which shows bad faith. But there's also the matter of whether the punishment fits the crime. I doubt that a suspension would prompt Frank to change his behavior, but by not banning him indefinitely, he would at least be given a chance to show whether he is trying harder to moderate his language and some of his behavior. Right now, I'd argue that a permanent ban would be an excessive punishment for what he's done so far - the good and the bad. But part of the problem here is that if no action is ever taken, we are restricted to persuasion only. I've tried that, and it does work well enough for Frank and me to have resolved some tasks to our joint satisfaction, including working out acceptable language in the Northern Ireland article, but in the meantime, as we saw in the Northern Ireland article and talk page thread, he ruffled some feathers of other users pretty significantly. I'd be absolutely fine with not suspending him until he causes another significant disruption or sharply insults someone again, but it is necessary for everyone to know that they can be suspended for their behavior and that the admins will follow through if pushed, because otherwise, we have no leverage. Does that make any sense to you (and I'll take "No" for an answer if that's your reaction)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think Ikan is 100% correct here. As yet another example, Texugo renamed an article to follow standard naming practices and was then chastised with the following:
Obviously there are advantages to always featuring well below Wikitravel on search engine results pages - far fewer readers means far less time is wasted dealing with spammers, for example... However, some editors here would much prefer that their work receives a wider audience. [5]
Despite the current discussions about a user ban, and despite repeated requests to be civil, edits that insult well-meaning editors and insinuate that "some editors" don't want the site to be successful continue. Enough is enough - apply a three day block, and if future issues occur apply blocks of increasing length. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think that comment by Frank was so bad in context, but I do agree that it's the kind of language he needs to avoid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, it looks like Texugo and Frank are handling this amicably, so I think he gets a bit of a pass on this one. It's OK if you disagree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I just ignored that comment because I found it typical of him and didn't want to engage personally over that, but to be honest, I was ready to support a 3-day block before that. This community has to waste too much energy monitoring, corralling uncooperative behavior, responding to a very uncivil and unforgiving style of argument, correcting instances where our established policies are knowingly flouted, and having discussions like this one. Whether I were to say that his comment on my talk page was the last straw, or whether I say let's give him one more straw, I don't think it really makes that much difference. He has already been given a thousand chances to correct his attitude and behavior, and I don't really think giving him one more is going to magically bring about any change. Ikan's highly diplomatic "get hold of yourself" message doesn't seem to have had its intended effect, and there is little doubt that he has continued the unwanted behavior fully aware that he is doing things he has been asked not to. Texugo (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should start to think of blocks as "punishment", as Ikan worded it above. They are not. They are a technical tool used to protect the wiki from damage, when our normal soft security efforts fail. Using them as a stick to try to correct behavior seems to me to be bad practice. And again, no one has quite explained what they expect a 3-day ban to do. Texugo says above he doesn't think "one more chance" is going to produce change; isn't that essentially what a 3-day block is? Maybe I'm missing something everyone else is seeing, but humor me and explain what the 3-day ban is supposed to accomplish. LtPowers (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The wiki is being impacted negatively. Nobody would be discussing this if there wasn't an impact on the wiki. We have a limited amount of techniques to protect it. We have reverts, page protects, discussions, temporary blocks, and permanent blocks. That's it. People are expressing that reverts, protection and discussions don't appear to have worked in this case. However, some are optimistic that a temporary block may have the desired effect. We prefer positive contributors to enemies. So, in answer to your question, 'what is a temporary block designed to do?' Two things. Firstly, to hopefully cause the user to reflect and hopefully contribute more positively in the future. Secondly, it is a warning that any further disruption to the wiki may be met with longer blocks. When our wiki needs protection, we generally follow the established pattern of revert, discuss, protect/temporary block, permanent block. I see no reason to deviate from that in this case, even if some are of the opinion that the cause is hopeless. --Inas (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with Inas and Ryan. Frank crossed some lines and all our soft power is gone. Either we allow him to do what he wants or we set a barrier. Its a bit like kindergarden: If you do something bad, you get extra time. Otherwise the others will be discouraged for their compliant behaviour and the whole thing falls in parts. I can only say if there is no action, then i will reduce my activity here. Just look at Frank's talk page to see the specific dislike he sees in me. I think Peter got a pretty unfair share of his hate as well. jan (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I certainly don't hate anyone here - almost all of you are anonymous for one thing and I'd consider myself seriously mentally unhinged if I got that involved.
I do agree that it doesn't really matter if there is malice intended in what many people who have written here interpret as sharp, insulting or snide comments written by me. It is how writings are received - not how the comments are intended to be received. It also doesn't matter that I think some of this is oversensitivity because you think it's a sock pulling your chain or because some dish out far more insulting behaviour (objectively speaking) than they've ever received from me. It also doesn't matter that I'll probably be proved right in the long term about such relatively trivial issues as external link formats (that's happened already), using the upright parameter to relatively size images according to readers expressed wishes, making individual judgement calls on discretely signalled and relevant in-line Wikipedia links, shortcuts in WV namespace, or deleting forgotten skeleton articles. What matters is the perception that I am flouting or disregard community consensus. At the end of the day it's absolutely irrelevant whether there has never been a consensus not to use "upright", what is more important is that people are wasting valuable time scrutinising my every edit in case I "sneak in" an upright parameter or a Wikipedia link rather than developing travel content or combatting REAL spam and vandalism. It's clear to me now that I have greatly overestimated some individual's maturity of judgement and greatly underestimated the levels of obsessive concern.
It does matter that we have very few readers because nobody here is willing to consider some necessary and vital changes if we are not always to rank below WT for most of our articles, but I now accept that nobody will take my advice seriously unless there is a sea change in attitude.
I would hate to be the precedent that caused this project to abandon the ideas expressed at Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits so that these wise words are junked or effectively become a dead letter or just pure hypocrisy:
"One thing to note is that we talk about unwanted edits, and not unwanted editors. Wikivoyage is open to anyone who has knowledge to share, wants to help us reach our goals, and is willing to work with other contributors to get there (see the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use for more information). The lifeblood of any Wiki Web site is the ability of any reader to add, edit, and delete information on the Web site. For Wikivoyage in particular, we absolutely depend on a large pool of casual readers to share their knowledge about places around the world." so I now appreciate that you need to be re-assured that I am not either a troll or incapable of changing my behaviour. I sincerely hope that we do stop doing some silly things which are adversely impacting our search engine visibility and, consequently, we then increase our readership more than FIFTY-fold. I'd hate then for some of those new contributors to be banned in short order because of the poor precedence that I've set.
You need to be re-assured that I take your concerns seriously and that I am "willing to work with other contributors to get there" - so I will now take Jan's proposal for a 3 day block and triple it. This is the last edit I'll make in any namespace other than my own userspace (and this page, of course, if it's necessary to respond) until October 2013.
If I'm allowed the privilege of returning to edit other namespaces in October 2013, I will then unilaterally impose on myself these restrictions for a period of at least six months (I hope the relevant policies will have been clarified by then):
1) I will neither add nor remove any upright parameters in thumbnail image specifications
2) I will neither add nor remove any in-line links to Wikipedia ( - with the exception of {{IATA}} templates which many people probably don't realise already break our current sister links policy). All the Best! --W. Frankemailtalk 12:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Very honorable, Frank. Enjoy your time off. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:AliceEdit

It is unclear to me the urgency to block an account that has not edited in months? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's very unclear to me, too. We need to avoid conflating the block of the Alice account with blocks of the W. Frank account in this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I suspect it arose because we were again engaging with User:W. Frank in the entirely unproductive and irrelevant sock puppet discussion on Alice's talk page. --Inas (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the sock puppet business is irrelevant, and I would say very respectfully that it probably would have made more sense not to reopen it, especially not on the user talk page of an account that hadn't been used in months. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Why did I block a sock puppet of a user who has a long history of hiding from consequence by taking wiki breaks when things heat up, when that sock puppet has not been used since things heated up for the sock puppet? This is puzzling to me. Can you explain to me which part of the evidence presented on Wikivoyage and Wikipedia do you have doubts about that you are asking this question? -- Cjensen (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the point is that the Alice account on Wikivoyage hasn't been used in months, so this is an odd time to block it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The user is still entirely active. He stopped using the account to avoid consequences. Why not ban the second account in this case? Or for that matter, his third account. -- Cjensen (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Even from a distance, it appears to me that there was insufficient evidence to block or indeff this user. Even the circumstantial evidence doesn't appear to add up. Tony (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Tony1Edit

This user has been a thorn in our side almost from Day 1. His interactions with the community have been almost uniformly combative, unconstructive, and insulting. He has no evident interest in advancing our project; on the contrary, he seems to openly resent the existence of Wikivoyage as a WMF project, and has even gone so far as to gleefully predict this site's demise on a frequent basis. He seems to have no grasp of, or interest in, the concept of consensus as a means of making decisions - he prefers to use bullying and insults to advance his chosen positions long past the point where consensus is clearly against them, and often deliberately violates policies he does not agree with. Repeated attempts at counseling by other users have proven fruitless.

Sorry to stir what has evidently become a hornet's nest in the wake of the departure of some of our longest-standing and most-respected users. But if our goal is to prevent any more defections by making Wikivoyage a more enjoyable place for all to contribute, let's grab the bull by the horns and make a strong stand in favor of civility. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What, specifically, is your proposal, Andre? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
As far as how best to deal with problematic users in a more general sense, the discussion that's currently ongoing in the Pub addresses that issue nicely. My proposal is simply to ban this user, and to be less reticent in doing so than perhaps we've been in the past, which IMO would contribute in a small way to making Wikivoyage a more civil environment. His conduct, and his resistance to other Wikivoyagers' attempts to counsel him on said conduct, certainly seem to merit a ban. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean a permanent ban, or are you proposing to start with a 3-day suspension, following procedures like those Texugo is suggesting in the thread in the Pub? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I have to think about this one, but I would not support a permanent ban at this time, as excessive. --Rschen7754 23:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree, Rschen. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well, and a permanent ban, right off the bat, was not what I had in mind. However, I think it's fair to say that our policy on user bans is in flux, with Texugo's proposal having gained a good deal of support - and frankly, given the circumstances in Wikivoyage of late, I wanted to gauge the sentiment of the community before taking any action of this type at all, temporary or permanent. A three-day ban following Texugo's proposal sounds fine. However, from an editor-retention perspective, generally speaking I do think it would be prudent for us to crack down on antisocial behavior at Wikivoyage. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What exact edits justify a ban? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I believe I've seen edits pushing a specific method of style (against what we have), and there's also the comments on the traveller's pub. --Rschen7754 05:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean this prediction of failure [6]? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose, but it's more the pattern of attacking this project, similar to his crusade against the English Wikinews. --Rschen7754 05:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be content at this point with a warning to him that the next time he makes an ornery remark, he will be suspended. My prediction is that his immediate response to such a warning would be an ornery remark, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This thread beggars belief. It is symptomatic of a sick, isolationist, xenophobic culture that cannot tolerate criticism. How did WV get this way, or has it always been like this? If you can't take criticism of resistance to change in your stride (even react positively to it), there is something very very wrong. Either way, it appears that the WMF was very unwise to spend nearly a million dollars on saving this site from the clutches of that corporate raider that owned, commercialised, abused, and spurned it simultaneously. My initial view is being confirmed, that the years of ownership by that company has poisoned the volunteer editing community.

I repeat, the site will not survive unless it adapts, and I see every sign of resistance to adaptation—technological, stylistic, procedural, and more. If you ban a user for saying that, heaven help WV. Instead, I'd be encouraging criticism, not overreacting to it as though it's the huge threat, and dishing out abuse; rather, the threat is already there from doing nothing.

So I hope you desist from this extraordinarily aggressive attempt to silence a critic, and see the bigger picture. This kind of attitude will continue to turn editors off joining the community, and will hasten the departure of well-meaning existing members.

A further consideration you might account for is that it's better to have criticism from within the tent than outside. You don't want people you abuse taking pot-shots in the WMF movement and sister-site communities, pointing out the realities of the situation you find yourselves in. Tony (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews is still up and running. WV is in a lot better shape than it is. I am not sure if I agree with banning people who are ornery or make comments critical about the project.
If people edit war or make repeated edits against policy that would justify escalating blocks. Same if people make repeated personal attacks.
IMO everyone just needs to drop the sticks for a bit. A few long term members of the community have left. We obviously have issues. Hopefully we can improve things. Maybe they will return. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Dropping the sticks is what got us to this point. And you seem to define "repeated personal attacks" differently from some other folks. Whom do you think he's attacking with his nonsense about a "sick, isolationist, xenophobic culture"? Do you think those are some kind of generalized criticism? He has said over and over again that he thinks the admins and other members of the so-called "old guard" are somehow greatly attached to the way the site used to be and refuse to change, and therefore the site will die - and that's just because he hasn't convinced a consensus to accept his attitudes about spelling. And whenever he's called on it, he posts the same kind of nonsense you see in this very thread. I've been very tolerant, but doing so has helped to allow a climate to develop that's led less thick-skinned admins and who knows which other users to leave. A hostile work environment should no longer be tolerated, and that means that repeated orneriness and baseless attacks should be grounds for a warning and then suspensions of increasing length. And then the anti-social individuals can complain elsewhere, as they doubtless already do, but the black cloud of their presence will be lifted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The agro shown by User:Tony1 is far more likely to be a turn off to new contributors, and a bar to any possibility of those who have left returning.
His style of 'rant' and entirely uncooperative style isn't amenable in any way to improving the site. If there are constructive suggestions in there, they are so hard to pick out within the invective as to be useless. If User:Tony1 thinks the site should be shut, there is a place on Meta for him to state his case as best he can.
That said, for this particular nom, we would Wait, and see what comes out of the discussions in the pub. We need to make a call on the type of site we want to be. --Inas (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
To sum it up in 2 words: battleground mentality. --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Rschen, yes, you're the one who spat all over me a while ago. Not the kind of behaviour I'd expect from someone like you. Now Inas, has anything I've written suggested I think "the site should be shut"? Could you diff me to that, please? I warned that I think the site will die if it doesn't become more adaptive; somewhat different. Tony (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I said "If User:Tony1 thinks the site should be shut". It was the impression I got from reading your words here and elsewhere. I'm happy that to learn that you don't. --Inas (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
And this thread isn't aggro? I've not been uncivil to anyone, and some of you seem to react very badly to criticism of the site. But I stand up to bullying, and these threats of warnings and blocks are entirely inappropriate. If you continue to bully me, you won't see me again, and instead of trying to help this site—you may not see it as help, but that is in fact my intention—I'll spend considerable effort in broadcasting to people in the WMF movement just what kind of closed, retrogressive, bullying mentality dominates here. You'll never hear the end of it. You don't need enemies in the movement, so why create them? Believe me, I'm good at telling the truth out there. Take your pick. However, if you want to drop this aggressive persecution campaign you've started, there's hope that things might simply settle down, and the community can proceed to actually doing something useful. Tony (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that kind of ultimatum helps. I believe and hope that any reference you make anywhere to a "bullying mentality" that exists here, will be adequately refuted by the open face of the record on this site. --Inas (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Or the bullying could just stop. That would be the functional solution. If it doesn't, you can bet I will be broadcasting it. Why wouldn't I, when frankly I've done nothing wrong but speak plainly. As I said, I've been uncivil to no one. I just want the community here to take its future seriously; and thus far there is not a glimmer of hope that it is prepared to do that. Tony (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
"Participants who intend to resist any change to "their patch" will use a number of strategies. Framing critical comments as 'insulting' is one of them." [/en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1&diff=2429355&oldid=2429354 "these entrenched objections to change, and a dysfunctional approach to consensus gathering"] "'Understand that ...'. Hmmm, we're down to ordering me about, are we?" You're very good at skirting the edge of civility without making actual personal attacks, but that doesn't make you any less unpleasant a contributor. Temper your bleak assessments of the site's prospects, which have an effect opposite to that which you intend, and try not to get offended when we don't immediately accept the wisdom of your suggestions. LtPowers (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we should calm down a bit and many here need to read Don't feed the troll. Yes, Tony pushes an agenda and can be distinctly irritating at times, but I've seen nothing that justifies even discussing a block, let alone applying one. Maybe I just missed it; anyone wanting to convince me should post links to specific edits. Pashley (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
(e.c.) But are you, here, practising what you preach, Powers? Most people would regard your post as slightly beyond the edge of civility, accusing me of being "unpleasant", and ordering me to "temper" bleak assessments. It adds to the continual line of attacks on this page. Again, stop the bullying. If people thought there was no truth in my points about the site's future and willingness to adapt, they'd have brushed off my comments, which instead appear to have hit a raw nerve (very telling indeed). The way to deal with it is to engage, not to bully and personally insult. I made an attempt to attract people to the "roadmap", and yes, there were more entries, but what has become of it? Now I am accused of utter destructiveness. But you pass over my true intentions to take aggressive umbrage at my plain-speaking criticisms. Nothing like a common enemy, concocted through misreading and exaggeration if need be: politicians' handbook. Drop the moral outrage, please. Tony (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I am boggled at the continued wishy-washiness of some members of our community at taking a more assertive approach to problem users, in the wake of three of our most respected contributors leaving the project for that selfsame reason (the W. Frank/Alice user ban, which I kept silent on, but thought was long overdue). Tony1 has put on an able demonstration on this very thread of the exact antisocial behaviors that earned him my nomination for a userban in the first place. We can parse our policy as finely as we want, but think of this: if our toleration of this kind of behavior is making contributors leave, what good would it to do proudly trumpet our adherence to policy if the result is that our community is decimated? I say that if our interpretation and implementation of our policy needs to change to adapt to changing conditions at Wikivoyage, it would be absolutely foolhardy not to do so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Tony, it is not some false accusation to say that your behavior is unpleasant for the rest of us who are on the receiving end of your negative commentary. What you are getting is not bullying at all, it is simply the reasonable reaction to be expected when you constantly throw unfounded negativity at the site, threaten to actively work against the community, encourage others to flout community consensus, and categorically condemn the community at large as being sick, isolationist, xenophobic, and steadfastly resistant to change. The community here is none of those things, and you would be wise to drop your gloom-and-doom proclamations and your blanket allegations and find some useful way to contribute. We do actually accept valid, constructive criticism quite well, and we adapt, and we change things, and there have been a lot of big changes here in recent months, with more on the way. If, however, you continue to categorically disparage everyone with falsehoods, that will indeed be considered good grounds for a ban. Back down. Texugo (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You issue bullying orders ("Back down"). I don't crumple under bullying, and I never will. You say I "disparage everyone with falsehoods", but I don't express my thoughts in personal terms, as the attackers here do. Rather, I've been critical of the culture, the community, generally. You will condemn the site to failure if you hound out people who make systemic criticisms, since those criticisms are one way of thinking through solutions.

I have supported WV from the start of the troubles with IB. I think it could be competitive in the medium term. It has some strengths, but faces a complex task in keeping up with stiff competition from commercial interests. But personally, I'm just not interested enough to bother against this kind of tirade—not at the moment, anyway. I have far too much that I have promised the Foundation but not delivered yet, and too many obligations on sister sites, to be fixated on WV. I rather think the attackers should back down and reflect on what I've said with greater equanimity. In particular, AndreCarrotflower is injecting a destructive aggression into this thread that isn't helping anyone, let alone the project. Perhaps I was heated in that edit-summary, but I stand by my prognostications. Tony (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Tony, we've had similar discussions before. Here, at your request, I laid out a list of some of the many things that we have changed since launch, despite your insistence that "I've encountered a resistance to change at WV that is regrettable in the light of its sagging model." You never responded, perhaps because it puts paid to the notion that we're resistant to change. What we're resistant to is people coming in from outside and telling us we've been doing it all wrong and we'd better change ASAP or we're going to die. I trust you can see the difference. LtPowers (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I call a timeout here? This is the very sort of thing we want to prevent and there won't be any action until someone takes a step forward or backward. @Tony: People preferred to informally discuss items at the pub, in a free-flow method rather than at the Roadmap directly, so please do not think it's blank because no one is interested in the future. We've also been asked to centralise information as a unified wishlist by User:Sharihareswara (WMF) at Meta, because these improvements are not only restricted to the English version of Wikivoyage, and she has also sent it onwards to WMF product managers and Wikidata developers. It's quite hard for users to put together a list, without knowing what technical backup or limits there are, so hopefully there'll be some dialogue with interested developers. I also agree there has been a lot of change, and too much even that we haven't even had time to catch our breath or implement things completely. That you don't realise this and blanket the entire community, is the distressing part of your remarks. Whether the site is small or large, I do want it to be friendly. -- torty3 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Since this issue is distracting from other wiki issues, I've applied a three-day "cooling off" block. That seems to be inline with the discussion above and the current Pub discussion, and should hopefully allow tempers to cool a bit while addressing the concerns of those who feel that the situation was creating an unpleasant environment. See User talk:Tony1#User ban nomination for an explanatory comment left at Tony's talk page suggesting ways that we might find common ground in the future. If you think I've erred in applying this block please let me know on my talk page, but otherwise let's move all comment on any changes to our policies for handling difficult users back to the pub discussion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Tony1 Part 2Edit

A perusal of this user's contribution history will show that, since the hit piece written by him was published in the Signpost, his account has been used exclusively to antagonize other editors and cause disruption, to the total exclusion of mainspace edits or even policy discussions. In my estimation, his is what equates on Wikipedia to a vandalism-only account. On Wikipedia, VOA's are banned indefinitely. While I fully appreciate that Wikivoyage is not Wikipedia and that Tony's case is not quite as straightforward as all that, I think given the circumstances we can certainly consider consequences that are more serious than the three-day cooling-off ban Tony's antics earned him previously. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A perusal of his contributions before the latest Signpost article patently shows it is not a vandalism-only account. Nurg (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
As I said previously, the analogy isn't a perfect one and the situation isn't quite as clean-cut as that. Nonetheless, even if the VOA analogy is invalid, I find Tony's inappropriate use of User:Wrh2's real name against his wishes in an unsavory context troubling enough that I certainly think discussion of a very long if not indefinite ban is warranted. Moreover, speaking more generally, this user has thoroughly demonstrated his lack of willingness to cooperate in any constructive way in the furthering of our community's goals, and I think that burying our heads in the sand and allowing this nonsense to continue is immensely counterproductive.. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I was going to hold a user ban nomination in abeyance to see if he departed by himself, but my observation would be that he is here only to troll, and I certainly don't think we should tolerate trolling indefinitely. If there is a consensus to ban him indefinitely or for a long period, I will certainly go along with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree he came to WV only to troll. Regardless, why not just ignore him. He has made a total of five edits (one a typo correction) since the article. Nurg (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
For this community's own good, it needs to identify trolling as such—in all cases, not just in obvious ones—and deal with it decisively. We've already had a taste of the alternative—the passive tolerance, even catatonia, with which we've responded to past trolls is a big part of why Peter, Jan and Alexander threw up their hands and walked away. I can't really say I blame them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't fit with my reading of the policy on trolling. Nurg (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
A lot of his contributions are problematic, but not a VOA. --Rschen7754 21:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Block indefinitely for attempted to damage and disruption to Wikivoyage. --Saqib (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indefblock as nominator. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to think about this one a bit. Tony's behavior has certainly been problematic on several levels, both here and on other Wikimedia sites. However, I am concerned that this is coming off as a knee-jerk/emotional reaction to the publication of the story, rather than a measured response to the level of disruption that we have seen. --Rschen7754 21:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if we forget about the trolling, or whatever you want to call it, and focus instead on the issue regarding User:Wrh2's personal information, we would be remiss not to come to the same conclusion. For a user to be allowed to dox another user with impunity would set an absolutely terrible precedent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It may be harassment, but it is not doxing, as Wrh2 has publicly revealed his name on this site. --Rschen7754 21:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The revealing of Wrh2's personal information may not rise to the dictionary definition of "doxing", but the intent behind it was the same in its essence. If we waste time splitting hairs, as we are doing now, we give the trolls – and I use that word intentionally – ample opportunity to game the system and cause further disruption. In the final analysis, Wikivoyage is not governed by policies – it's governed by real-life human beings whose job it is to interpret those policies, including in situations that the writers of the policies may not have foreseen. I repeat, using wikilawyering tricks in the service of mollycoddling trolls is something that has been incredibly detrimental to our community in the recent past, and is likely to continue to be detrimental absent a change in our approach to unwanted edits. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
See [7] for a previous response on this subject. My full name is a matter of public record, and while I think it shows poor judgement to use it in on-wiki discussions when not necessary, and particularly when making erroneous accusations about prostitution [8], unless Tony was continuing to do so I don't think it rises to the level of maliciousness that would warrant an indefinite block. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not now. I'm extremely sympathetic to the desire to deal with incivility, and feel that if we can't find a way to do so that we're going to lose a lot of editors out of frustration at having to operate in an unpleasant environment (see Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun for a step towards developing some civility guidelines), but I'm uncomfortable with an indefinite block for a case that "is not quite as straightforward as all that". Let's finish up the warnings-then-increasing-length block discussion at Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits so that we have a structured way of dealing with incivility, but put this nomination on hold unless specific issues arise. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Attempting to be neutral and just looking at his contribution history it seems that he went off the rails on September 16th and has only been combative since. I would say a long ban would actually be appropriate since the negativity on the Travellers' pub is not helping the site in any way. We don't want to lose editors however I don't believe that Tony1 is actually editing anything anymore.Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wait and see whether there are positive developments as per Ryan.
Encourage and respond civilly to the good edits and pertinent points he makes.
Ignore or, if you must, deprecate civilly and rationally, any edits you don't like.
If he makes you foam at the mouth, consider if you really need to read pages where he is likely to be found being unnecessarily abrasive or argumentative. Try and be a little more tolerant and wait thirty minutes or so before reaching for the keyboard to respond. Demonstrate that this community is mature enough to tolerate and respond positively to criticism.
None of what I have written here should be regarded as giving Tony1 a blank cheque - but then I honestly believe that, in main article namespace and WV policy namespace, Tony1 will not wish to harm our travel guide. Yes, he's angry after what he regards as an outrageous 3 day block, but please don't give him any excuse to show that this community is anything other than sage, patient and wise. --118.93nzp (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since 5 Oct he has made just 5 edits, including one typo correction and one reaction against the previous, withdrawn ban nomination. His next edit will likely be in reaction to this ban proposal. Just ignore his edits. He may well stop editing again if the fuss dies down. I agree with Ryan and 118.93nzp. To block him on current behaviour will just support his criticism of blocking practices here. Nurg (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
And we care about Tony's criticism of our blocking practices why, exactly? He's already demonstrated himself to not be interested in advancing our community's goals—and our community's antipathy toward him is the effect, not the cause, of that. It's also been demonstrated that the tool he used to threaten us, that being his position at the Signpost, is not nearly as effective as he would have us believe. Wikimedians are not fools; by and large, the reaction to the article he wrote in the Signpost was that it was a transparent attempt to smear a community in which he'd worn out his welcome. I am really struggling to understand why we're trying to redeem ourselves to a user who is clearly not interested in being won over.
I am especially troubled by Nurg's warning that "[h]is next edit will likely be in reaction to this ban proposal." When dicks are called out on their dickery, of course the response will be more dickery. That doesn't mean we should tolerate dickery merely to avoid making waves, and I would hope that we would not be cowed by such a thing. In the same vein, I categorically reject 118.93nzp's description of Tony1's edits as "criticism". Criticism, of the acceptable kind, is done civilly. Tony1 has never been civil, and especially not in the aftermath of his Signpost article. And regardless of whether Wrh2 is willing to forgive or take a wait-and-see approach to the issue of his personal information being revealed, the fact remains that at the very least, we're dealing with a recidivist troll. Maybe that's not grounds for an indefinite ban, but certainly some course of action is applicable, even if it's just the usual one of escalating ban periods.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not now - We're really jumping the gun here. From looking at Tony's contributions to other sites, and at earlier contributions here, it appears he does want to do some good. The issue is he seems to be intolerant of criticism and the processes we follow here. I'd be happy to let him edit here if he show he was interested in furthering the project and not instigating negativity, which is all that seems to have come from his presence so far. James Atalk 03:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I indicated above that I would support a long block if there were a consensus for that. I will also support a wait and see attitude if that's the consensus. But I do tend to think that expecting the individual in question to suddenly become constructive is rather fanciful. The best we could reasonably hope for is for him to again depart. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though I might support a lesser sanction, or a restriction to or from certain tasks, or probation. I just don't think this meets the level required for an indefinite block, yet; I fear that it will eventually end up this way, but we have not extended every possible opportunity to Tony at this time. I also fear that this would be greatly misconstrued by the Wikimedia community, no matter how we justify this. --Rschen7754 04:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, it's time to go kicking and screaming back to our discussion on this subject. This to me seems a clear case of what would be W:WP:NOTHERE --Inas (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It would have been fundamental to proper procedure to inform me of these threads, which I've only just become aware of. Isn't there any regard for due process?

    Again, insults fly ("dick"—yet again this offensive epithet), but they're apparently not uncivil because an admin here is uttering them. That is very strange and would be utterly unacceptable on any other WMF site. Yet there are no diffs of the incivility I'm accused of. Vague accusations seem to be accepted without question. I don't name-call, and while I might speak plainly, I'm not uncivil (with one exception months ago that I regret, where I was rather too blunt on PeterFitzgerald's talk page). As others have pointed out, accusations of "trolling" and "vandalism" are rather hard to substantiate, unless you classify the measured defences I've written at the traveller's pub as trolling. The fact that I haven't edited articles recently, and never did much, is an odd attack. Last time I looked, you don't have to do that to contribute, and like other WMF sites, you should probably consider a number of editorial profiles as worthwhile.

    Continuing the pack-attack behaviour would send a very bad message to the Wikimedia movement that it really is a xenophobic and dysfunctional culture, incapable of tolerating critical input—let alone reacting positively to it.

    I've pointed out that Ryan's full name is all over the place, including its direct connection he has made with his username at the top of his Meta page. No one complained that his full name appeared in my previous Signpost coverage. Please choose topics that have substance.

    It's not as though I want to spend time on this site beyond defending myself against these attacks, so this is all symbolic, as I suspect you realise already; but I do strongly support the site's aims and want to see it move ahead as the preferred online source. Look to my en.WP talk page now for signs of goodwill and constructive conversation about the future of Wikivoyage. I'd rather be a friend to the site than an adversary, and I'd hoped that when I next cover the site on the Signpost (which will happen) it would be a good-news story.

    Dropping the outrage and assuming a less highly strung demeanour towards editors would be welcomed by everyone in the movement; I particularly mention Andre Carrotflower, who has flown the outrage flag from the start in a most unhealthy example for the rest of the community. Spending your time and energy instead on constructive planning for site improvements would work against WMF talk that this is "not a priority site" (I was surprised and disappointed to learn this from JamesA on my en.WP talk page). The use of blocking and banning for personal revenge would confirm the low-priority line. I have no more time for this thread, and nor should anyone here unless motivated by some notion of personal revenge: if that's the case, please read the Foundations terms of use. Tony (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, as you well know, but please don't claim to speak on behalf on "the movement".
I have time for this thread. We have to take a harder line against users who simply aren't here to make a travel guide for people to enjoy sharing their knowledge on places and things, but instead armed with aggression and a combative tone, try to making contributing just plain unpleasant for others. The irony of identifying it as revenge is thick. --Inas (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with that, but an indefinite block is not the only tool that we have in our bag. --Rschen7754 06:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Fine, every story I do on WV will simply announce at the bottom that I was banned in retaliation for my previous coverage. This culture is weird. This is very sad for your site. Tony (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Except, you're not banned. So that would be somewhat odd. --Inas (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I have an honest question for Tony to reflect on, and I'm hoping against hope that he takes it in the constructive spirit in which it was meant, rather that seeing it as yet another manifestation of the burning-hot grudge I supposedly harbor against him.
My question is, if our community is so set in its ways and resistant to change, why have some new users come to Wikivoyage, more-or-less immediately begun asserting themselves in policy discussions in favor of changing this or that, and yet not earned the ire of the old-timers? I'm going to use Nick as perhaps the most obvious example, though there are several users who fall into the category. Since his arrival here, Nick has been probably harder at work on things of that nature than on the meat-and-potatoes work of editing articles: he has proposed tweaks and improvements to our Main Page, a proposal for an interactive readers' portal that he calls "My Voyage", and been a key mover and shaker in the Banner Expedition and the Airport Expedition. Sometimes his proposals gain traction, and sometimes they don't—and when the latter happens, he goes back to the drawing board and works to hammer out a compromise or else takes the community's consensus in good humor.
I could link to any number of diff's you asked to see, Tony, but you would likely write them all off as examples of "speaking plainly". But, could that be the key to why Nick is well-liked among Wikivoyage's bigwigs and you, Tony, are not? That what you see as "plain speaking", most of us see as abrasive and combative?
This is not a simple case of the rest of us needing to grow thicker skin, as some have suggested, nor is it something that will go away on its own if ignored. I doubt that any of us here came to be editors of Wikivoyage in order to meet new friends, but there's no escaping the fact that there's a social aspect to participation in any wiki, or indeed any collaborative project. People skills are a necessity here, especially for those who want to go beyond merely editing articles and participate in the consensus-based governance of the project itself. Some people have good people skills and some not so much, but the good news is that with practice, one's people skills can be improved.
Because I believe that you honestly do consider yourself to be speaking plainly rather than antagonizing us intentionally, Tony, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination for a userban against you for the time being. But I'd counsel you to remember that if you really believe in your vision of what a better Wikivoyage would look like, you'll get a lot further in making it a reality if you speak a little less quote-unquote "plainly". That doesn't just go for Wikivoyage, either, but also for most things in life.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, AndreCarrotflower.

As you had the first word in this proposal, why don't you have the last word now and close and archive this interesting discussion... --118.93nzp (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to wait for Tony to see and respond to what I said. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I suspect User:118.93nzp is a sock-puppet account of Tony1. --Saqib (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
[Edit conflict ... and BTW I don't do alternate accounts. See my attempts to have en.WP policy tightened on alt accounts. I like my brandname too much to want to alt edit, and I have a moral objection to the practice.] I'm delighted that you think that way. I'm also pleased that new editors are coming on board. Perhaps I chose style/spelling issues that a few people have held out to retain, or that others don't care enough about to comment on. That did end up being more negative than one would hope for, and I continue to find the lack of change on those fronts frustrating. However, I'm not going to enter any debates on the site about those matters. As I told JamesA, I am willing to provide assistance or review of the text/framing of applications for technical assistance and its funding, if not at a bad time of year. There are a lot of opportunities for technical work on the site if the road map is any indication, and if the right developer can be found and one or two WV editors can be liaison points. I urge you to take advantage of the WMF's IEG program for that purpose. Tony (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Saqib, let's please not be in the business of idly making sockpuppet allegations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, this is a bit ridiculous. --Rschen7754 14:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Why ridiculous? I said I only suspect. I realised it was a mistake so I pardon for it. --Saqib (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tony way initially supportive of this project. He raises some legitimate concerns and others I consider off the wall. Accusations of alternative accounts without evidence need to stop. This is a serious accusation and making it without evidence will drive editors away. Some need to be way less paranoid and need to put up with greater differences in communication style. They need to drop the sticks. New Zealand and Australia are different countries. We need to give people the benefit of the doubt. Have some fun, write some travel content and ignore comments you find disruptive. There are many pages on WP I keep off my watch list as I am not interested in the drama. The best way to deal with drama is to ignore it. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not now. Tony1 expressed his hate to this project and some of the editors quite clearly. He decided to continue trolling around here, but he is clever enough to balance carefully on the edge of our rules and patience. I don't see anything within his 5 edits since his last ban till issuing this new request we could ban him for without possibility of being confronted with treating him unfair by uninvolved observers.
I would even go so far as to say he wishes to be banned from here as a part of his mission to support his theories of unfair treatment of newcomers and mainly himself. Danapit (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


User:W. Frank Part 2Edit

Should there have been a discussion before W. Frank received a new 3-day block from User:Cjensen? See relevant posts at User talk:W. Frank#End the drama and User talk:Alice#Checkuser request, where there was a post by User:92.26.113.205, which is Frank's IP (per his say-so). I personally found the post hilarious and said so. I do realize that I've been quite a lot less sensitive to the effects of Frank's sarcastic posts on other users, so I don't post here to call the justification for the suspension into question, but so that the procedures going forward can be clarified.

To sum up: Is it going to be left to each individual admin to decide whether to summarily suspend Frank for a remark in the future (presumably for a week next time, etc.), or might there be some discussion of whether a particular sarcastic remark is sufficient cause for a further suspension? Just to follow this line of thought a little further: We shouldn't countenance invective or hostility on anyone's part, but if we expect Frank to stop being sarcastic altogether, we might as well ban him for life now, because that level of personality change is simply not going to happen. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The few who try to police his damage are tired of it. Those who advocate continued toleration of willful defiance are failing to clean up after Frank. It is time for the short leash to encourage him to stop trolling. Blocks need to come early and often now to avoid further damage to this project.
As for amusing... it's really only amusing if you weren't paying attention to what was occurring (and I mean that sincerely; it honestly looks funny on the face of it). The Dr was attempting to sort out the issue of whether or not Alice and Frank are different people. He was providing all possible benefit of the doubt and trying to find a solution. Then in comes Frank to make fun of the complexity of the proposed solutions. Best case scenario: that was poor judgement, so I pulled the leash to end the disruption. Worst case scenario: he was trying to incite drama through the use of humor to disrupt a serious matter. -- Cjensen (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't see what the deal is here... noncontroversial blocks can be done ad hoc by an admin, controversial blocks should be discussed on this page. The drama came when neither procedure was followed. --Rschen7754 05:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think User:Cjensen is clearly trying to direct the focus back to writing the travel guide. I don't know why User:W. Frank even chose to be involved in the discussion with User:Alice? After returning from a period of off-wiki time for stirring up drama, to get involved in that discussion in that way showed poor judgement. I have no idea why either User:Alice or User:W. Frank would want someone to spend time supporting their anti-sockpuppet case, when none of it would be relevant, if they could work cooperatively on the wiki on a normal basis. It sounds to me like their trying to vindicate a reputation on WP, which really isn't our concern here.
So, to be clear on my position. No problem with sarcasm. User:W. Frank at this point should avoid the drama, and focus on the travel guide. Actions by User:W. Frank that are clearly not intended to further the cause of building a great travel guide, and intended to argue a dispute that exists on another wiki, or create more drama concerning other users that he might or might not be, and shouldn't be countenanced at this point.
In fairness to User:W. Frank, this is as much our weakness as it is his. Our wiki has shown that we can't cope with a user like User:W. Frank, and that we can spend so many hours and tie ourselves in knots demonstrates this.
I agree that this block, and future blocks should be noted here. That's our procedure. I think for this instance, Ikan Kekek's notice should suffice, so he certainly did the right thing to raise it here. Inas (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)--Inas (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to note for the record that I've spent quite a lot of time dealing with Frank's edits and was indeed paying attention to what was happening on User talk:Alice, yet still found his post funny and posted as much. Thanks for the explanation, though; I understand it but do agree with Inas that future (presumably longer) blocks of W. Frank's account should at least be noted here after the fact, with a reason given for them, even if there is no prior discussion of whether a particular edit of his merits a further suspension or not. I should say that I am torn on whether there should be further discussion prior to further suspensions, because I recognize that several admins find it too exhausting and distracting to deal with such discussions, and we've already lost at least one admin over this. But at least a notice here as soon after the fact as possible would be appreciated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the notice of this and future blocks on the current page is fine, but there is no field for further discussion. Cjensen has done the absolutely right thing. I regret that I have not done the same long time ago. --Alexander (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
We are ethically obliged to follow existing policy regarding blocks. "Bans made without a vote and without an understanding of the gravity of this action (and not covered by one of the exceptions listed below) are considered abuse by the administrator. In other words, a user ban is a really, really big deal." • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The effect of not taking any action is such that two very good and prolific editors decided to leave the project. I don't know what other gravity of the situation you or other people here want to see. I am sorry that it mostly happened behind the scenes, so that you (and probably few other admins) are not aware of the whole problem. On the other hand, there is more than enough evidence on-wiki. I am quite sure that when the ship sinks, it is not time to ask for policies, especially those policies that apparently failed to work. --Alexander (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If we do not follow the procedures their credibility is eroded. People have no respect for rules which are not applied evenly, when some animals are more equal than others. Precedents are set and trust is lost. I don't see that this case was an emergency which required special override.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Peter: What procedure are you suggesting that we follow in relation to future blocks of the W. Frank account, ignoring please the Alice account for the purpose of clarity? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Noting that User:Pbsouthwood has converted Alice's block to a 1 day block and re-enabled talk page access. --Rschen7754 07:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Under the circumstances (my interpretation of the policy) this is the maximum that can be arbitrarily applied. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Peter, in relation to the new block of W. Frank, not Alice, I think we should discuss interpretation of the policy you quoted. Since we previously discussed justifications for blocking User:W. Frank for 3 days in a discussion that is now in the archives, is it so clear that a renewed discussion, requiring a 3-day wait is required every time he is blocked again for 3 or more days? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
When I changed the block on Alice and commented, I was unaware of a new block on Frank. All my comments referred to the block on Alice. I will reconsider the case of Frank. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
As a preliminary comment, and without prejudice, it seems reasonable to allow a shorter period before re-blocking the same user for a repeat of the same offense for which a previous block was agreed. For cases where there is no obvious urgency due to major ongoing vandalism, in which case an immediate block is already allowable, I think there should be the same conditions except no time limit (user ban nomination, notice on the nominated User's Talk page, support from two (other) administrators), and if there is opposition the block should be limited to maybe 3 days to allow some discussion. This is just an off the cuff opinion, and I am open to alternative suggestions as long as they are fair and comply with our guiding principles. Blocking the user's own talk page should be avoided as far as reasonably possible. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:92.43.68.68Edit

This vandal (see Special:Contributions/92.43.68.68, previously blocked for 1 day, has earned a 3-day block from me. I see nothing whatsoever controversial here, so this is really just to put it on the record. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Thanks for taking the time and effort to follow correct procedure, IK. Because this is a clear case of automated "search and replace" profanity, I also agree with exceptionally blocking access to the User namespace too for the duration of the 3 day block (but not for other blocks where there is no appreciable risk of profanity, libel, or outing of real life identities involved). One possible complication is these contributions from the same IP which seemed rather sane and technically knowledgeable, but for 3 days, that's not a proximate issue. --W. Frankemailtalk 14:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Blocking IPs like this is already allowed under policy, and does not need to be noted here. --Rschen7754 07:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

User:118.93nzpEdit

See User talk:118.93.67.66#User_talk:Cormac_Bracken edit disagreement, [9]. This user, also previously User:118.93.67.66, likes to push right-aligned TOCs in the talk pages of new users and then intemperately edit war when someone decides to edit that for being out of compliance with existing WV policy. I don't give a damn about which side a table of contents is on, but intemperate edit-warring shouldn't be tolerated. I plan on instituting a 1-day block if the edit warring continues, but I thought I'd note the discussion here in case anyone else thinks a longer (e.g., 3-day) block may be more appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a diff to:
a) Policy that says that there should not be a right-aligned TOC in the talk pages of new users (or, indeed, any other user)
b) Policy that encourages the removal of an editor's words (where those words are not uncivil or otherwise prohibited by policy) by another editor (not being the user whose talk page it is) to change their meaning.
If User:Texugo does not like someone's edit on another user's talk page, it is open to him to request the owner of that talk page to remove or archive that edit. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not interested in debating what side the TOC should be on and don't give a damn about that, but you need to use a more appropriate place than new users' user talk places to incite that debate. Edit warring and intemperance are the issues here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me! I think you need to calm down and not make any further edits until you have calmly and coolly analysed the situation.
You certainly need to stop characterising a carefully crafted welcome as either edit warring or incitement. I was the first to edit that new user's page, so it certainly was not me to start "edit warring" as you so neutrally express things.
We started with the plunge forward concept (on Wikitravel which forked into Wikivoyage) and I do hope that sensible position has not now been perverted by the ultra-conservatives into a position where everything that is not compulsory is forbidden. (ie anything that has not been yet specifically decided by consensus that it is allowed, is forbidden) - hence my polite request for you to provide diffs for you to justify flying off at half-cock again. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm completely calm. I suggest that you argue about TOCs on a policy thread. If you're not sure where to do it, just start a thread in the Pub. I'd be delighted not to suspend you because you've ceased edit warring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad that you have calmed down now. I have no urgent desire to argue about ToC positions.
It really is for Texugo to put forward the weird argument that User talk pages should resemble our policy pages by having their ToC's left aligned. Until he succeeds in obtaining a consensus for that position (and I note that he failed to achieve a consensus that ALL thumbnails should always be RIGHT aligned) then you should not support Texugo's breaches of etiquette and edit war yourself.
Unlike in main or WV names pace, it is the editor that removes another editors comments (without a policy based reason) that is edit warring - not the editor that made the policy-compliant personal comment or welcome. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I would consider anyone reformatting my talk page (like adding a ToC or changing its position) as invasive and impolite. I see it as pushy and in your face. By all means offer help when requested, but do not make unrequested changes - it is a form of incivility - ask any teenager:-/. This is another area where common sense may fail due to cultural differences, so when in doubt, err on the side of reticence - incivility is largely in the perception, not necessarily the intention. Motive is not the issue to me, I cannot distinguish between helpfulness and simulated helpfulness, so must judge by actions. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
At last! A comment that I can both understand and agree with. (The only minor quibble I would have is that I created the particular User talk page in each case rather than changing or re-formatting it...)
Now that a reasoned explanation has been given, I will change my templated welcome and wait a while before raising the topic of table of contents position in another venue.
The other thing I need to make clear is that my "victim" is more than able to both judge the position he wants for his ToC (or decide not to have one at all) and make the necessary edits for himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slightsmile --118.93nzp (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Another comment, not aimed at anyone in particular, but at all those who fit the description: The adversarial style of arguing a case appears to be prevalent in some cultures. Others find it anything from basically impolite ranging through to strongly offensive to play the man rather than the ball. For those who don't get my reference, I mean that consensus is more likely to develop from a discussion in which the issue is considered on its own merits, and the identities of the participants and their history is not emphasized. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I have never used Frank's user account! I don't know his password and I wish you would cease your personal vendetta. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Since English is not your first language, I need you to clarify, whether you are accusing me of sock-puppetry again or whether you are simply referring to the fact that I adapted Frank's own welcoming template, Saqib? If the latter, how exactly is that relevant to me being blocked or not? --118.93nzp (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Congrats, I've given up. I'll not accuse you anymore for being a sock. --Saqib (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on new user's talk pages should not be tolerated. User:118.93nzp should have been blocked as a defensive measure to protect the wiki. If the same thing recurs, a short term block is appropriate. --Inas (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Either you're confused or you haven't analysed the sequence of events here. Texugo is the edit warrior not me. I'm the guy that welcomed the new user. --118.93nzp (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to state your case, but chiming in after every comment on this page may not be the best way to do it. --Inas (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ban welcoming users for 1 week. I recommend we have a ban on this user welcoming new users for 1 week. This follows on from the most recent welcome message, when this dispute was taken to the welcome page of a new user. --Inas (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I will voluntarily not welcome users if it upsets you so much.
I think you need to make your mind up about the most fundamental rules of consensus and etiquette on this project and stop introducing your personality politics and personal vendettas into places where they do not belong.
Here is me using the template which Texugo does not like.
Here is me immediately deleting the right aligned ToC which Texugo does not like to try and be conciliatory.
Here is me immediately trying to appropriately modify the last paragraph after deleting the right aligned ToC which Texugo does not like. I hope you notice that I mention nobody by name.
The position of the ToC on a user's talk page should really not be an issue on a wiki unless and until there is a clear policy not to have a ToC at all or to have it in a specific place so that user talk pages are more likely to be mistaken for policy pages.
How ever did this concept of micromanaging welcomes and users' talk pages develop in such a perverted manner here. I see now why some Wikipedians have said there is a sick culture here. --118.93nzp (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't upset me. We're a travel guide, that I edit for a hobby, and I don't get upset over it. However, I don't think it is in the best interest of developing our travel guide, to have petty disputes taken to the talk pages of users on their very first encounter with our site. I'd think that is quite straightforward. I'm not that familiar with WP policies, but if it handled the situation differently, I'd be surprised. --Inas (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. User has showed a repeated history of edit warring over trivial matters (see also [10]), continues to engage in ad hominem attacks about "bullies", "censorship", an "old boy's club", etc ([11], [12]), has made unsupported and repeated accusations of bad faith (Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations#Tony1 (Part 3)), etc, etc. This seems like a textbook example of disruptive editing, and I strongly believe that banning this user is in the best interest of Wikivoyage. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Incredible. The first diff you provide is where you make a deliberate attempt to obfuscate where admin abuse can be discussed. --118.93nzp (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Wrh2. Also engaging in meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry with Alice. --Rschen7754 00:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes a person just happens to agree with someone else on several points which are not widely supported. This does not make them sockpuppets or meatpuppets. We should try to avoid accusations that would not stand up to close scrutiny, even if they may be true. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
No, they are actively collaborating off wiki, at a minimum: w:en:Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-30/News_and_notes#The_search_engine_problem --Rschen7754 06:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I actively collaborate with people on WP and WV, in some cases off wiki. I don't see this as a problem. We have an e-mail facility to contact other users. This implies that off-wiki contact is acceptable in principle. When we migrated to WV we collaborated off-wiki from necessity. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Contacting other editors is one thing. Getting other editors to promote your causes (which in this case are the same, including the unusual interest in the de-adminship process - I'm surprised that we didn't just block on w:en:WP:DUCK there), especially to make it appear that many people support one issue, is another. --Rschen7754 07:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not fond of the duck test. What looks like a duck to one person may look like a goose to another. The alleged duck may have some difficulty proving its species without a DNA test. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying that these edits [13] [14] are completely unrelated? --Rschen7754 19:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
They are on the same page, so no, not completely unrelated. Also on the same subject, which is not surprising as they are on the same page and the subject is relevant to that page. I have also suggested that there should be a formal procedure for dealing with desysoping, before we even made the migration, and at the time the majority of those taking part in the discussion were of the opinion that we should not have one. The recent developments have not convinced me that I was wrong, but that does not imply that there is any connection between myself and these other two users other than that we may have shared a similar opinion on that specific subject at the time we made those edits. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"and at the time the majority of those taking part in the discussion were of the opinion that we should not have one" - that is most certainly not what the consensus was. The consensus was that we shouldn't openly advertise it on the page saying "here, here, come and file a request!" --Rschen7754 05:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Your summary is more precise. Do we have a formal procedure on desysoping anywhere consequent to that discussion?
My point was intended to refer to the duck test, I was perhaps careless in specifics I did not consider directly related to my point. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, we block plenty of accounts on en.wikipedia for DUCK, so either en.wikipedia is deeply wrong about this, or it works.
The only point in question is what "consensus" is to desysop, but we don't even know what "consensus" is to sysop, anyway, so... --Rschen7754 07:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not Wikipedia.
An unfair system may work, within a given definition for work.
I don't think it really 'works' on Wikipedia either. That is my opinion, I have no reliable references to cite. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, the CU tool is pretty easy to fool, and it cannot be used to publicly disclose the connection between accounts and IP addresses, so you're basically saying that we shouldn't block sockpuppet accounts at all, even when it is obvious and disruptive. --Rschen7754 08:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Is it really your considered view that discussing admin abuse is an extreme rarity and/or an extreme minority interest amongst registered editors at WMF projects? Even if it were, my welcome message to another user here (that elicited a block from Ikan Kekek when I was editing without having created a user account) obviously would have excited any editor's interest in how this project's admins behave.

Do you really think that only an extreme minority amongst registered editors at WMF projects write in a non-US variety of English?

Do you really think that only an extreme minority amongst registered editors here believe that the 24h time notation is not superior for a travel guide?

Do you really think that only an extreme minority amongst registered editors at WMF projects prefer for their expressed wishes as to thumbnail sizes not to be flouted?

Do you really think that only an extreme minority amongst registered editors at WMF projects prefer for helpful hyperlinks to other WMF projects to continue to be prohibited?

I could continue until your eyes glaze over, but let me assure you that none of the issues that I have raised at policy discussions are minority concerns. (I won't even mention search engine optimisation concerns about increasing our readership).

I could sympathise with your quack, quack analysis if this so-called team were espousing and pushing an extreme minority viewpoint such as the earth is flat - but I'm not and, as far as I've analysed their edits extensively, nor did Alice or Frank or Tony or any of the other editors in this conspiracy theory.

The "disruption" as you put it, has been caused solely by conservative and thin skinned editors resisting worthwhile and necessary reform and improvements to our guide and it reflects your limited grounding in reality that anyone would seriously think that I make hundreds of boring copy edits just so I can from time to time annoy the pants off you by suggesting that the ToC on user talk pages is normally better on the right (if that is the default position for thumbnails and the default position for ToC's on policy pages is on the left).

What is special and common about Alice or Frank or Tony or I is that we all advocate for an optimal and rational approach to matters of style and substance and not that we're determined to annoy you.

If you're really serious that reform and progress and more readers and editors is always going to make you hopping mad then there is a very easy solution:

Achieve a consensus that all ToC's on user pages must always be on the left and enshrine that consensus on a policy page that's easy to find, make crystal clear that it is more important to have standard sub-headings than have ten times as many readers and that the English Wikipedia was entirely and perpetually wrong in daring to suggest that user preferences should be honoured.

If you make clear that all your policies are already complete and perfect and easily found and understood, then I - and every other editor will know that they should stick to correcting grammar and spelling mistakes and not dare challenge the keepers of the sacred wikitravel guide.

IBobi would be proud of you all many of you. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Admin abuse, sure. Pushing for the inclusion of a very specific header advertising for desysop requests to be filed? No. --Rschen7754 05:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support of 1 day block if the user continues disruptive editing (messing with TOC and layout) and edit waring on newbie pages (which he did, I must admit I overlooked the Slightsmile case). When User:118.93nzp copied the welcome template from User:W. Frank's subpage, he was surely aware (like he is aware in great details of many details that's been happening in the community within the last cca 6 years) of the discussion on this talk page, where many arguments against messing around with newbie's talk pages were raised. If User:118.93nzp wants to dispute these, newbies' talk pages are not the places to start doing it. Danapit (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC) + 09:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I was entirely aware of Frank's rationale and Texugo's mindless and irrational opposition to Frank's rationale. However, what all of you except one fail to comment upon is that nowhere did Texugo bother to attempt to obtain a consensus for his weird hatred - never mind get that edict enshrined in policy. I welcome somebody - using what I still think is a reasonable template (complete with explanation to cover Texugo's only rational objection) and all this drama begins. Doesn't Texugo have more productive things to do than micromanage other user's talk pages?

Hello, User ban nominations/Archive !

 
A Kiwi and Strawberry Pavlova to welcome you!  

Thank you for your interesting contributions to our articles and welcome to Wikivoyage !

To help you contribute, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and our house style as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page.

However, even more important than following every guideline is to PLUNGE FORWARD and write something useful – someone might be along to help with the proper formatting later if we're both lucky...

Add your home town, or a place you know well or write some insider tips - but please don't use first person pronouns.

It was terrific that you created your own user account on Wikivoyage because it'll now provide you with various benefits:

  1. easier communication with other writers about your edits and travel tips via this, your very own User Talk page, even if your future visits are from another IP. Don't forget to log in, though!
  2. your choice of thumbnail image display size by setting the default size they will display at (in your user Preferences)
  3. gain kudos for your contributions, which will now all be attributed to you rather than just an IP address - as long as you remember to log in!
  4. your contributions will become more trusted as you become familiar to other Wikivoyagers as a frequent editor with a history they can check
  5. you'll not need to pass a recaptcha test each time you add an external link
  6. protect your privacy — your IP address will still be displayed in the history of articles if you have not remembered to log in to your registered account, but logging in will allow you to maintain your privacy behind an alias
  7. your very own watchlist — a list of pages for which you want to keep track of future changes
  8. become a Project:Docent — if you know a destination well and would like to share your knowledge
  9. Preferences menu — customize your Wikivoyage experience.

If you need help, check out Wikivoyage:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. We're looking forward to seeing you again and again here on Wikivoyage now you're a registered user!

PS:I've set your table of contents (ToC) to be right aligned because it's the best position for it as more and more people chat with you and it also helps distinguish this your User talk page from the discussion pages for articles, policies and templates, etc. If you don't like it there on the right then, of course, you can remove the HTML that codes for it - it's your user talk page and your choice as to where you have a ToC or even if you want a ToC at all... --118.93nzp (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to make something clear: I have been entirely calm today. Any arguments based on my not being calm are irrelevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
And I see that you continued to edit war on a user talk page after I left (see [15]). Had I not been out, I would have already suspended you for a day. Is there anyone who objects to a 1-day suspension for User:118.93nzp or thinks the suspension should be longer? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I call for a minimum 3 days block. --Saqib (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Pardon?
The diff you reference above has an edit summary of "Inas moved page User talk:Slightsmile to User talk:User:118.93nzp/deletedwelcome without leaving a redirect: taking disputes to welcome pages not acceptable".
The only edits I made to the user talk page of User talk:Slightsmile were the original and only edits made there in the course of a few minutes. I don't have revision deletion powers remember. Inas does. --118.93nzp (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the dispute you brought to a newcomer's talk page "I've not set your table of contents (ToC) to be right aligned... because it annoys the hell out of some folks here...". Very charming welcome. Danapit (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's right. Before I created this account, I borrowed Frank's welcoming template and customised it. I was absolutely amazed and furious when up pops an admin and accuses me of being Frank (I thought at the time - I accept now I was misunderstanding Ryan's intentions and I sincerely regret my intemperate edit summary). One interesting thing is that after both Ryan and Ikan Kekek started edit warring about my welcome, the actual user whose talk page it is, reverted Ikan Kekek!
  • Comment - I'll not express an opinion on a block at this time since I was directly involved in this incident, but I will say that I view this as very probably an instance of intentionally baiting admins for the express purpose of being disruptive and provoking responses to make accusations about, such as the various accusations he has made about me and others above — deny it as he undoubtedly will, I find it impossible to believe that this user, who otherwise appears to possess an implausibly complete awareness of, unconditional support for, and style/approach/attitude identical to everything W. Frank/Alice has ever done, was somehow unaware that the template he copied from an obscure W. Frank subpage had already provoked controversy, as Danapit mentioned above. I cannot at this time make any provable accusation of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/tagteaming, but by now it should be extraordinarily obvious to anyone paying attention that something is very fishy and disingenuous about this user's behavior and its more-than-mere similarity with the already rejected antics of W. Frank/Alice. What can be established, however, is that the behavior itself is unacceptably disruptive and cannot be tolerated indefinitely, no matter which username it comes from. Texugo (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Obscure?!? He would have been obscure if you lot hadn't turned him into some sort of anti-Christ figure by continually banging on about him and his legions of putative sock-puppets! --118.93nzp (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Obscure, as in you would never even come across that page unless you were intentionally digging through the back closet of W. Frank's user space. Texugo (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking back at the great divisive sockpuppetry debate of the past few months, perhaps we've been approaching the issue from the wrong angle. What Texugo has said is elucidating: it's almost irrelevant who is a sockpuppet of whom, especially being that our community does not prohibit sockpuppetry, but what is relevant is the question of whether the pattern of behavior that Alice, Frank, 118 and the others have in common is disruptive, and secondarily, if the history of occasional worthwhile contributions by some of those users is enough to absolve said behavioral pattern. That being the case, I support taking action against this user in order to set a precedent that this behavioral pattern will not be tolerated going forward – from 118, his or her alleged sockpuppets, or anyone else. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, the pattern of behavior that I am referencing includes but is not limited to: edit warring, tampering with others' userspace unnecessarily, unfounded accusations of our community being an "old boys' network", disruptive and unsupported-by-consensus changes to site formatting including TOC, and baiting or being otherwise uncivil to other users. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Everyone, please specify the number of days you'd like the suspension to last. We need to come to a consensus about the length of time as well as whether to suspend or not. My proposal was for 24 hours. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
One week, at minimum, is ideal. 118's persistence is already in evidence given his or her extensive edit history and dogged resistance to attempts by other editors to counsel him or her on questions of conduct. Thus, IMO we want to send a strong message. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
>= 3 days. 1 day doesn't really do anything; that's shorter than the length of this discussion. --Rschen7754 22:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
IK, I'd be for 3-7 days ban. --Danapit (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Pull the other leg. Anyone reading this in future years will very quickly understand that what is being discussed is a punitive action against my rational criticisms of policy (and lack of clearly enunciated policies) and nothing whatever to do with my future conduct.
Now that Peter Southwood has explained things civilly and rationally, I've agreed that my stance is wrong and said that I'll not welcome anybody by even hinting that they might like a table of contents.
Where are all these other so-called edit wars I've engaged in in main article space? Diffs please... --118.93nzp (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No. If you notice, there have been many times that I have criticized prominent administrators on this site, quite vocally too. But the problem here is a battleground mentality, and refusal to listen to others and respect community consensus. 118.93nzp is not willing to ever consider the fact that they may be wrong; this is a textbook case of what results in these long and drawn-out conflicts: poor user conduct. --Rschen7754 05:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
If you don't wish editors to adopt a battleground mentality then don't continually threaten, bite and whine on about tag teams and sock/meatpuppets.
It's obvious that the very different personalities that have been labelled as reactionaries, druids, "an old boys club" etc, don't like being lumped together in this way and labelled - why ever do you think that I like being falsely accused and labelled any less?
Even here you can't resist having a dig can you?
Let me leave you with a fact you seem to have overlooked entirely:
Unless you intend to block the entire New Zealand Vodafone IP network, if I did indeed chose to "harass you poor admins" any block - temporary or permanent is not going to stop me is it?
Admin harassment is a complete figment of your collective imaginations.
Now that Peter has explained how it might be perceived by the User whose talk page I place a welcome on, I've clearly stated a while ago that I will not place any more html or templates that directly affect the ToC position.
If Texugo had argued rationally with Frank instead of adopting his uusal hectoring and bullying style, I've not doubt Frank would have adopted the same attitude as I have now many weeks ago.
Stop trying to behave like mediaeval absolute monarchs. Argue rationally for particular policies and then publicise those policies.
Sometimes you won't be as clever as the French and able to have a policy in place for every conceivable occurrence, but you really need to abandon this anti-democratic attitude of "let's hide things from the plebs, they might question some of our hallowed traditions".
Yes, I did support you in your "privacy warning" but let's see the policy spelt out now so that we don't continue to make things up on the hoof.
Finally, I take it that none of you have actually been able to find those missing pages about:
a) Policy that says that there should not be a right-aligned TOC in the talk pages of new users (or, indeed, any other user)
b) Policy that encourages the removal of an editor's words (where those words are not uncivil or otherwise prohibited by policy) by another editor (not being the user whose talk page it is) to change their meaning. --118.93nzp (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"Unless you intend to block the entire New Zealand Vodafone IP network, if I did indeed chose to "harass you poor admins" any block - temporary or permanent is not going to stop me is it?" - threatening to evade blocks is not a good argument for leaving you unblocked. --Rschen7754 06:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a prime example of "battlefield mentality". Rather than take my words at their face value, you assume bad faith and take them as a threat.
I merely pointed out the factual and logical error in trying to pretend that this proposal is about protecting the integrity of our pages or even about educating a recalcitrant iconoclast. You all know this is really about spite, vindictiveness and not wishing the fallacies in your policies to continue to be exposed.
Did you learn nothing after the "Tony1 ban"? IBobi's attempts at censorship and PR'ing his way out of justified criticism have been totally effective too, haven't they? Yes, bans, blocks and censorship rather than civil persuasion, transparency and education are really effective in stopping criticism, aren't they? --118.93nzp (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Please read w:en:WP:NOTTHEM. --Rschen7754 10:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to get it out of the way, regarding the issue that sparked it: I think we can all agree that having a random user step in and change the formatting on our own user pages would undoubtedly be considered an intrusion. Just being the first to comment on someone`s page does not give you any special right to make those same changes. This user was already aware that these objections to the practice had been previously brought up but decided to continue it and force it through a revert war anyway. After undoing it twice and seeing him reinsert it both times, I walked away confident that someone else would step in, which Ikan Kekek did. Having said that, in his responses above, the user is trying to, among other things, frame this ban nomination as a referendum on his policy opinions about the TOC and other things like SEO, image sizing, etc., with the claim that the admins are abusing this as a way to quash dissenting opinions ("punitive action against my rational criticisms of policy").

To be very clear, what we are trying to do is to curb a very obstinate attitude and uncollaborative approach. Which policy opinions are involved doesn't matter in the least, and I daresay some of us might even be inclined to agree with some of his opinions if they were presented less self-righteously and less ham-fistedly. As far as I'm concerned, this is about, as User:Rschen7754 pointed out, the battlefield mentality, the failure to listen and discuss, the disregard for the opinions of others, the superior attitude, the failure to assume good faith, the disdain for and willingness to act against established practices without first changing consensus, the repeated blaming of opposition to his approach on an "old boy`s club"/"unthinking tradition" or other ad hominem attacks, the unwillingness to accept criticism, and the pattern of turning any criticism he receives around to try to attack the other person. The user has conveniently demonstrated most of these behaviors for us right here on this very page. Texugo (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. I really couldn't care much less about whether there is a TOC in a user talk page or what side it's on, but edit warring and orneriness are problems. nzp has made things worse for him(/her-)self in his(/her) comments in this thread. But it still isn't clear how long there is consensus to block. It seems like 3 days may be as close to a compromise consensus as there is in this thread, but it really isn't clear. Should there be a different subthread about how long a suspension should be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I would leave it at 3 days in my opinion. That being said, we need to make these sorts of discussions more efficient - this thread has been open for almost 3 days. --Rschen7754 21:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Although the proposal at Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks is not being followed in this instance, that proposed procedure has block 1 at three days. Nurg (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The "old boy`s club"/"unthinking tradition" does exist de jure, see Wikivoyage:Consensus#Status quo bias. That said, however, a welcome message to an uninvolved new user isn't the appropriate venue to debate some minor point of style or policy. A ban just on welcoming new users should suffice. K7L (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A question that hasn't been asked yet is, what if they violate the ban? Will we have another 3 day long discussion where we decide whether or not to actually ban? --Rschen7754 21:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I proposed a one-week ban, but three days would be fine with me if that's what consensus ends up being. To Rschen's point, in the entry immediately above this one (the IP-jumping, copyright-violating anonymous vandal) we've now got an effective precedent that says all of a block evader's known socks are re-blocked for incrementally longer periods of time, without needing to individually nominate each new iteration. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I mean if the ban on welcoming new users passes, and is subsequently violated. --Rschen7754 22:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I would say no, this is enough discussion for that purpose. But I think that nzp's language and behavior in this thread should also be taken into account in determining whether and for how long to suspend that account. I see policy debates as irrelevant and an attempted diversion in this thread, just as they are irrelevant in user talk threads of new users. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Count me as firmly against a ban simply on welcoming new users, as opposed to outright. The worst thing we could do would be to fool ourselves with the illusion of having meaningfully tackled the problem when our solution is, in reality, a cop-out that makes far too weak a statement to deter similar acts in the future (from this user or others). That's precisely the type of milquetoast approach that drove away Peter and Jan. I see this user ban nomination as having the potential of being a watershed moment in the evolution of our process of dealing with disruptive users, And if you ask me, let's really deal with this problem or else let's not even bother. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of shooting myself in the foot, I tend to agree with AndreCarrotflower that truly disruptive users may have to be perma-blocked if they disrupt article, template or policy namespaces and refuse to comply with clearly stated and consensually agreed policies.
If users are continually disruptive in user namespace as defined by that user whose namespace it is, then that user may naturally request that the "disruptive" user be barred from editing their user space (any necessary communication could be done via a mediator).
Now lets see the dozen diffs where I've been disruptive - as opposed to where admins who simply don't like my existence have breached policy by wiki-hounding, name calling and pointy behaviour.
Let's see those diffs, please and I will simply retire if anyone can produce them... --118.93nzp (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You don't get to define "disruptive edits" in a self-serving way that's structured specifically in order to exempt yourself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi 118.93nzp. Speaking as someone who definitely isn't in what you describe as the 'old boys network' and as someone who doesn't want to see you blocked from this site, I would say that the thread above just isn't going to persuade anyone on the merits of your position. Obviously you want to affect positive change for WV, which is commendable, although it is clear that your modus operandi is counter productive to this aim. The process of making fundamental changes will a long time, will be tedious, and often will not be successful. This is not just WV but actually life in general.
Although this discussion is long and complicated, the core issue was very simple and around changing the user preferences on new users' talk pages. As a result of your strong feelings on this, it became a magnet for all the gripes that the community have had with you. Perhaps you would like to take some time anyway to reflect on why the community has reacted in this way? To be clear, I hope you can continue contributing. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Length of suspensionEdit

OK, let's come to a consensus about this. Please suggest no suspension or a 1-day, 3-day, or 1-week suspension (I haven't seen any suggestions for anything longer). My current proposal, considering nzp's remarks in this thread as well as the reasons for the original user ban nomination, is 3 days. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since "NZP" is a standard abbreviation for the "New Zealand Police", I'd much prefer it if you shortened my user name to "118" (that's also the first part of all the New Zealand Vodafone IP addresses that I've used...).
You might also like to publicise this proposal in the Pub, since not everybody takes such a keen interest in bans and blocks as the half dozen or so that have commented here and there may be some more admins out there that might want to argue for a much longer or even indefinite block...
Thanks! --118.93nzp (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't get it. You chose those 3 letters to append to the numerals. Nurg (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No suspension. User has agreed to stop the specific behavior that led to this nomination, and blocks should be preventative not punitive. However, should the user engage in similar behavior in the future (implementing preferred organization/style systematically without clear consensus, and aggressively defending such edits when challenged), I suggest an immediate three-day block. LtPowers (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I might support no suspension, but only if the user in question pledges to stop arguing about policy where it's diversionary or off-topic, but since that's a very common modus operandi of the user and the account of User:W. Frank, whose argument style the user engages in in every detail (note that I am not making a sockpuppet allegation, but merely a rather unimpeachable observation), I don't think such a pledge is likely to be forthcoming, or if it's forthcoming, reliable. Just witness all the diversions in this very thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, with the current way things are set up, we can't just do an immediate 3 day block. --Rschen7754 03:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, so what is this discussion about? Have we wasted loads of time for nothing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that with the way our ban procedures are set up, anyone can filibuster the discussion so that nobody is ever blocked. This is a problem. --Rschen7754 03:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
From my perspective, it's not been a total waste.
Accentuating the positive, I've appreciated Peter's point that good intentions are not enough, it is how they are likely to be perceived that is important. I've also appreciated that however hard I may huff and puff, no admin is going to break ranks and censor another for gross abuses of User talk page etiquette.
I've also learned just how deep the hatred is for Frank and how almost no amount of forensic evidence is going to convince any of the conspiracy theorists that this septuagenarian German neither whizzes around the world nor commands an international legion of Beelzebub willing to jump at his command.
If it will salve some wounds, I'm more than happy to consider whatever measures you might reasonably propose to calm inflamed tempers. Although, nobody here has ever bothered to provide any relevant diffs, I get the strong impression that it is not my copy-editing that is the problem. I can't do anything about the fact that you find my continual presence insulting and profoundly irritating, but I can promise to try and turn the other cheek at the first two or three incidences of name calling or harassment from each and every editor. After those first two or three incidences, I still think there should be a mediation page where editors can whine about what is bugging them and get it off their chest. Who knows, maybe there can even be some more productive proposals than tit for tat calls to ban and block editors - I don't notice that much entrenched disagreement about actual travel article wording - weirdly it seems to be relatively trivial things like ToC positioning or whether "Sq" is a well known abbreviation for "Square" that acts as the surrogate pivot for all this personality politics stuff. --118.93nzp (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
What is the forensic evidence that Frank does not whizz around the world? Nurg (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that you show up in discussions, and your contributions to those discussions regularly serve to inflame them rather than to bring light into the situation. That, and your excessive rhetoric and accusations. My evidence? The post you just made, where you accuse everyone but yourself of doing something wrong. Perhaps assuming a bit more good faith would go a long way. --Rschen7754 07:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. --118.93nzp (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The accusations of hatred are ridiculous. I've never hated Frank, and I have no hatred whatsoever for you. It's your behavior, and not your identity that is at issue. To Rschen's point: Just as Vfd discussions don't require complete unanimity, I don't think user bans do, either. So I disagree that a single person has the power to "filibuster" a ban nomination. If that's the case, it has to be changed. So why is it that we still haven't agreed on workable procedures? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with you, but it appears that not everyone thinks that way. --Rschen7754 08:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
We've surely changed policies without unanimity before. If we're going to honor the equivalent of single-senator indefinite holds on policy changes, I'll stop editing here if things get intolerable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We do have workable procedures and policies; it's just that some of you guys refuse to follow them! --118.93nzp (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Stay calm and don't think that you have to respond to every comment instantly and without cogitation. --118.93nzp (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
[ec x 5} Is a pledge actually necessary relevant if there is an intention to follow up on repeat instances of the same behaviour? At LtPowers says above, blocks should be to prevent damage, not to punish people. Whether a block will prevent damage should be the issue. Whether a block might cause collateral damage is also relevant.
More assumption of good faith all round and less adversarial debate would be nice. It might even work. Why not gite it a try? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The reason this is punitive instead of preventative is because this discussion has taken so long that the preventative effects of a block are diminished. This sends the wrong message to editors: all you have to do is get 1-2 admins on your side who will defend you through everything and drag out the discussion, and you can get away with anything. --Rschen7754 08:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm perfectly calm, 118. As someone who's felt the need to constantly comment in this thread and demonstrate exactly the kind of behavior that makes most of us believe a block is appropriate, your attempt to project such behavior onto me is interesting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The way it seems to me is that a large amount of time has been wasted on nothing, due to the attitudes of a couple of admins who refuse to take action. If I had known at the time I posted this user ban nom that it would result in this much disruption for absolutely nothing, I certainly wouldn't have thought it worthwhile, but would have simply suspended the user in question for a day, which doesn't require a user ban nomination. The whole point was that the user in question had created disruptions, but the disruptions he created were not so great compared to all the sound and fury in this thread, which has taken way too long to get absolutely nowhere. What the minority who refuses to support a suspension - and in at least one case, isn't even discussing the possibility of a suspension in the case of further disruptive behavior (which would be what, if it hasn't taken place all over this thread?) - have done is to encourage the disruptive user to continue right on disrupting. I'm not angry at him - that's his MO. I'm angry at you for wasting everyone's time. We are all volunteer editors here, and those of us who are admins are volunteers in that position, too. When it's no longer fun for me to be an admin or an editor here, I will quit, just as others have. I surely can spend time that I now spend here - and which could be spent doing things that might actually make me a buck - somewhere else. Do you want to end up with two or so admins, who do nothing to maintain order? You might end up with that if you keep this up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I've already posted the following to my User talk: page, so might as well post it here:
Out of all the Wikimedia sites that I am an active member of (a list that includes English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, Wikidata, MediaWiki, English Wikisource) I am the most concerned about this one, and have been for quite a while now.
We all come from different backgrounds and have different opinions. But lately I am seeing a complete resistance to any sort of proposal for anything, on the part of certain factions. The issue is that both sides are currently saying "this is the way that it has to be, full stop" with no possibility of compromise. That, combined with the fact that some interpret consensus to mean unanimity, and keep pushing this view, means that nothing ever gets done, and the status quo remains, for better or (as we are seeing) for worse.
Quite frankly, unless we figure out a better way to do things, I don't see a way forward for this site at all, and I think we will start watching more and more administrators resign their tools in frustration until whomever can deal with the crap the longest wins the dispute between the "old guard" and the "new guys". And then Wikitravel will be the real winner. --Rschen7754 10:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikitravel is in terminal decline; a slow one if we don't follow Frank's suggestions for improving our search engine placement and a very rapid one if we do.
It would indeed be a tragedy if admins felt they had to resign because either they could not follow our policies or because they thought those policies were ineffective. (I intend to expand this comment later, when I have time, by writing a lot more on this topic and also comment on the very sad comments from Ikan Kekek - so just regard this as a place holder in the thread. Until then, please don't get too discouraged - I believe that AndreCarrotflower may get his bright new dawn sooner than he hopes...)
@Ikan Kekek: Please e-mail me if it will help get things off your chest - ultimately if it's a question of you or me giving up, I think it much better that I go because you are by far the more valuable member of the community in terms of developing and improving this travel guide. --118.93nzp (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Why would I want to email you? I agree with many of your policy proposals. That's not the issue for me and never has been. You are not going to stop engaging in disruptive behavior suddenly, especially now that a couple of admins have given you license to continue, so what exactly would I gain from giving you my email address? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
At least 2 reasons:
1) To educate/reform me. I'm genuinely puzzled as to how and why you see my edits as disruptive (if you leave aside the idea that it is my very presence at this project that offends, disturbs and annoys you). It will be my phone call and my expense. Even world leaders often find it helps to just hear the other persons tone of voice and obvious and genuine concern.
2) To educate/reform you. It may be that you can be convinced by certain confidential (but checkable facts) that you've made a fundamental error of judgement about my true identity. If so, that may put things in a new light, if not, then what have you or I lost apart from some minutes of conversation?
If it's not you, then it's just going to be the next difficult user that comes along. The way of doing things around here needs to change. --Rschen7754 20:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. We need to go back to basics and actually start following both the spirit and the letter of our existing policies. I'm only a "difficult user" if people keep focussing on guessing who is really behind an anonymous account and whether they are co-operating/conspiring with others. I know you personally tend to concentrate on the administrative side of things, Rschen, but that may have given you a battleground, "hang em high" mentality that neglects the wider picture. Many of us need to re-focus on whether the actual edits improve or degrade our travel guide rather than assessing who is behind them or what their motivation could possibly be. --118.93nzp (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You'll note that I opposed the ban on Tony1, both times, so no. --Rschen7754 21:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what exactly is causing the frustration here on the part of you and Ikan. Is that we're reluctant to block someone? Is it that we still think blocking should be a last resort? LtPowers (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it's the attitude of "We have done SoftSecurity from day one, and we cannot deviate from this by any means or entertain any changes to the policy, and if you want to ban _, that's too bad, because we can filibuster the whole thing so nobody will be banned" without any attempts to find a solution that makes everyone at least somewhat happy. --Rschen7754 21:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
LtPowers, I'm a bit less frustrated with you than with Peter Southwood, who doesn't even propose a block in the future under any circumstances but instead criticizes the rest of us for supposedly not assuming good faith (this is not about assumptions and not about who 118.93znp "really is," which no-one would think about if his editing style weren't identical to and just as helpful in some ways and disruptive in others as another user) and blames us instead of the user in question for being "adversarial." But really, I've had quite a thick skin, but the idea that you two think that we should continue to take it on the chin - and I don't mean just admins taking it on the chin, I mean the whole site saying "keep kicking me," with obvious results - as shown by the diversionary behavior of the ban-nominated user in this thread, and do nothing, and that your minority view carries the day because a single admin can override a consensus and it is considered that unanimity instead of a clear majority is required, is untenable. If this site is going to require unanimity for user blocks, we are advertising to all trolls to come and screw with the site. Frank (and this user, if he isn't Frank but merely a carbon copy thereof), at least, is not a troll here just to mess things up, if we are to "assume good faith," but instead, is someone who has strong opinions about all sorts of things and while enforcing policies on many pages, regularly acts in deliberate contravention of policies on others out of conviction, rather than a mere desire to disrupt (though I would add that a different interpretation of his actions is certainly possible, especially in light of the broadly implied threat to evade any block we could have effectuated if this site weren't so dysfunctional). Things are likely to get much worse, with really devious users coming here and messing with things. And I repeat, if you two admins want to run the site as a commanding minority, you are likely to be left by yourselves when the rest of us decide that our lack of ability to maintain order or get much done makes it idiotic for us to continue spending time here. Do you think you two can handle all the spam by yourselves? Good luck if you're the last two left standing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Ikan, I used to have the misunderstanding that any admin could veto a block. This misunderstanding was due to the complicated wording of the policy. The wording of the policy was clarified a few weeks ago. Only a broad consensus is required. One or two admins need not stymie an otherwise broad consensus. Nurg (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, shall we resume trying to come to an agreement about the length of a suspension of this user? We need a table, if someone wants to tabulate the votes. I don't have time right now. (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that deriving from the discussion above is pointless. How about people just edit the table below? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, then will we have to have a separate discussion after this for the length? I am concerned that by prolonging this discussion, it is not improving matters. --Rschen7754 00:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The thread above has lots of combinations of ban + length proposals. I just fixed the table below to show that Ikan Kekek supports a ban of 'X' days. (He can update X to whatever he wants) Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Votes for ban of any length:

Support Oppose Abstain
Ikan Kekek for X days
Andrewssi2

Proposal to closeEdit

From doing a quick read-over of the discussion, here is what I have:

I believe there is consensus to ban for 1 day, and I will be doing so shortly if there are no meaningful objections. This discussion needs to be resolved, one way or the other; leaving it open like this is not productive or healthy. --Rschen 7754 01:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So the important thing is to punitively block someone (who you seem to have agreed is not a vandal and is willing to reform) quickly, and the details can always be sorted out later, no sweat, eh?
Where was this radical change (that blocking is no big deal) canvassed? I didn't see it widely advertised...
Have you ever heard the phrase: "hard cases, make bad law"? At least I could follow the logic of AndreCarrotflower: some admins are just so wound up and thin skinned that there needs to be a public whipping to make them feel better and not threaten to do a PeterFitzgerald. This despite my public offer here to walk if anyone worthwhile put me in a "choose between him and me situation"? --118.93nzp (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No objection from me. I'd have thought 3 days would be better, but anything is better than more drawn out conversation at this point. It can always be lengthened the next time this user acts up. Texugo (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not happy with the 1 day length either, but I think the motion needs to either be tabled, or we need to see where it falls off and act accordingly. --Rschen7754 01:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I changed my proposal to 3 days in the "Length of suspension" subthread, based in part on the user's behavior in this thread. I don't know if that changes the consensus. If not, let's proceed with a 1-day ban, with a 3-day ban considered as automatic if there is further deliberate violation of policy, obnoxious argumentation style of the type we've seen in this thread, or/and attempts to argue about unrelated policy in inappropriate places (including but not limited to new users' user talk pages, user ban threads, and discussion threads about unrelated policy issues). Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I stated earlier that I supported a ban of at least three days and possibly a week, as did Danapit (to quote him her from his her comment timestamped 20:32, 30 November 2013: "IK, I'd be for 3-7 days ban"). Ikan and Texugo additionally support a three-day ban, with Ryan and Rschen not having specified any particular length. I'd say that's more than enough consensus for a three-day ban. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be a three day ban then; I hadn't realized that the votes for 1 day were retracted. --Rschen7754 02:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Parenthetically, Danapit is a woman, so you were quoting her. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Now blocked for 3 days. 8 supporting and 2-3 opposing is fairly wide consensus, in my opinion. --Rschen7754 03:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
My humble apologies to Danapit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving forwardEdit

If Alice and/or W. Frank suddenly become active again, should we or should we not regard that as block evasion?

I realize that the question of 118's identity relative to those accounts is extremely controversial and also that we've endeavored to separate the sockpuppetry allegations from the issues of conduct. But this is something that we need to make a decision on if a block against 118 is to be effective, especially given that some of his comments could easily have been viewed as threats of block evasion.

Sad to say, we're in a position where we either have to a) assume that some or all these accounts are sockpuppets of each other created for disruptive purposes, and accept that we'll have collateral damage on the off-chance that these are, in fact, different people, or b) assume that these are all individual users with eerily similar behavioral patterns, and risk neutering our ability to prevent block evasion on the part of the sockpuppeteer if indeed these accounts are the work of one.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be more concerned about IP socking. 118.93 is a mobile range, and getting a new IP is as easy as cycling the wifi. --Rschen7754 07:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Although there were "eerily similar behavioral patterns", it has to be said that user 118 did appear to operate solely from that account and I couldn't see anyone else supporting his position that might indicate abuse of a sock puppet account. There were actually some serious issues to address here regarding some of 118's enthusiastic pushing of boundaries, and these continued accusations made the real issues much more difficult to deal with. I say please move on until evidence suggests that the sock puppet allegations have substance. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
118 was foolish to suggest that he could employ ip-socking, however there is no evidence that he has done so yet. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
At this point, I think we should have the attitude that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we should treat it as a duck, just as we've done with the Australian IP editor who disregards all posts to his/her User Talk pages and posts a lot of poor paraphrases from Wikipedia and other sites without acknowledgement. Whether the account we just suspended is actually a sock of W. Frank or/and Alice seems irrelevant, inasmuch as the editing style is so identical that if different individuals are involved, they must be coordinating exceptionally closely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll temper my remarks in the following way: If W. Frank or Alice start editing, as long as they completely avoid doing things intentionally in violation of policies and don't behave in an ornery way (for example, by pretending to be persecuted for their opinions, attempting to hijack threads to argue off-topic about policies, or to use welcomes of new users as a vehicle for promoting controversial policies or engaging in edit wars), I think we should leave them alone. But at the first sign of trouble, I'd like to see an immediate 3-day ban without any long debate here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It does indeed sound good, and it sets a good precedent, but the next step is modifying our policy.
Frankly, this discussion brought to light multiple deficiencies in our policy that ought to be rectified. And I want to emphasize that the precedent set by this discussion was an extremely good one - as I said in the above comment thread, "I [saw] this user ban nomination as having the potential of being a watershed moment in the evolution of our process of dealing with disruptive users", but the end result did me one better: it was also a watershed moment in the evolution of our definition of "consensus", as we came to one despite the frustrating intransigence of LtPowers and Peter Southwood. And precedent is all well and good, but now it's time to seal the deal.
When I get around to it, I'll put forth formal proposals on all the relevant policy talk pages (or contribute my thoughts to any discussions that may already be in progress), but for what it's worth, here's an overview of my own personal policy wishlist:
• A ban on sockpuppetry in all cases, rather than only when used for disruption. Sockpuppeteers are up to no good the vast majority of the time. And the unnecessary hoops we've had to jump through, especially as a community that is hard-pressed to pull together even in the best-case scenario, are hardly worth the good that comes from the extremely limited range of scenarios where sockpuppetry is appropriate.
• A much lower bar required to prove sockpuppetry. Some users (as evidenced by, inter alia, Andrewssi2's comments on this very thread) seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's ever possible to have solid, unassailable proof of sockpuppetry. Not even Checkuser is foolproof. The only evidence we'll ever have is circumstantial, and we have mountains of circumstantial evidence in the Frank/Alice/118 case, yet we're still told to shut up about it until we have a smoking gun. As Ikan said, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we should treat it as a duck". We should remember that the vast majority of Wikivoyage users will never be accused of sockpuppetry, and the vast majority of those few people who are accused of sockpuppetry will be guilty. I think the idea that we should tear the community apart for the sake of the microscopic number of people who will ever be falsely accused of sockpuppetry is ludicrous. We have to accept that tiny bit of collateral damage as the price of having a wiki that runs smoothly.
• Language about "user bans being a last resort, embarrassing, an admission of weakness, etc." excised from Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits. What a lot of utopian naïveté that is.
• "Consensus" redefined explicitly as being possible despite the filibustering of intransigent minorities.
• Also, as an aside, we should maybe put something into the policy saying that repeated, unwanted solicitations of off-wiki contact, including but not limited to private e-mail exchanges, constitutes harassment. Both 118 and Frank have done this repeatedly to me and others, with Frank going so far as to ask for my private phone number in a Wikivoyage e-mail message. That really gave me the creeps.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we shouldn't ban all sockpuppetry, but ban certain instances of it. For example, on computers that I do not trust, I use User:Rschen7754 public. It would be a very bad thing if my account loaded with special permissions was hacked into, so the other account uses a less secure password. But the account is openly disclosed, and there is a legitimate use for it. --Rschen7754 08:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't call that kind of legit use of multiple accounts "puppetry", because there is no intent to deceive. Nurg (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I strongly object to the characterization of my edits here as "filibustering" and "intransigent". I have edited this page precisely twice during the last three weeks, once to express my opinion that a block was, at this late point in time, pointless except as punishment, and once to ask a question in a genuine attempt to further the conversation. If you consider those two actions to constitute intransigent filibustering, I think you have an absurdly low tolerance for variation in opinions. LtPowers (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's first clarify a few things here. First, the word "filibustering" didn't rear its head until several paragraphs after the word "intransigence" did, and it didn't have your name attached to it; I was using it mostly in reference to 118 him/herself. Secondly, Ikan's comments (10:22 and 21:53, 1 December 2013) regarding "the attitudes of a couple of admins who refuse to take action" may have been colored by impassioned emotion, but in my estimation, they speak to the frustrations of a growing number of current and former editors here - certainly to Peter and Jan's, certainly to mine, probably to many others'.
There's a few editors on this thread (and as Ikan said, it's not only you, LtPowers, nor even primarily you) who would rather crow about minutiae of policy than allow a needed action - for which we otherwise have general consensus, for a change - to take place. I question the implied assumption that making sure we institute user bans only as prevention and never as punishment (which, I might point out, is not enshrined in policy either here or at Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits) is more important than keeping disruptive users like 118 from grinding to a halt any policy discussions s/he doesn't like and making fools of us in the ways that have been described on this thread. To speak to Peter Southwood's comments, I think we're far, far, far past the point of assuming good faith on 118's part (which, anyway, is a Wikipedia policy not a Wikivoyage one) - exactly how clear does it have to be that 118 is not operating in good faith? And to speak to something that I hinted at in several of my own earlier comments (23:47, 30 November 2013 and 08:09, 2 December 2013), I think that if this community's factionalism and dogged resistance to compromise has caused it to be nearly impossible to change our policies themselves, setting precedents whereby we interpret existing policy in new ways is a good Plan B. If we have to shoot first and tinker with the wording of policy later, so be it.
I repeat what I said earlier: it was heartening to me that our community as a whole was fed up enough that it became feasible to take action here despite the intransigence of a few naysayers - this situation in earlier times might have ended up bogged down by gridlock because we were afraid to call "consensus" any scenario where everyone didn't get everything they wanted. That is a very, very promising development. And in case you think I'm attacking you personally, LtPowers, I would have you remember that every one of us has been a member of an intransigent minority at one time or another. I'm not against any particular editor (least of all you); what I'm against is our community's reluctance to act against the wishes of someone whose advocacy of minority opinions crosses the line into obstructionism. I'm sure that at some time in the past, I too have gotten up on a soapbox and pontificated endlessly and held up some procedure that probably would have made things go more smoothly if it had passed - but if it comes down to a question of whether or not our community functions, I frankly think it would be better that the community feel free to tell me to shove it if necessary than to get my own way 100% of the time.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Andre, I should say that I agree with your policy proposals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, given that I have made only two edits to this page during this discussion (well, four now), I think characterizing that as "intransigence" is baffling. (I accept your explanation about "filibustering"; your repetition of the word "intransigent" implied a connection between the two cases. I thought you were saying that those of us being "intransigent" about the block discussion were the same as those engaging in filibusters against consensus.)
However, to a specific claim you made here, I do in fact believe that 118 is operating in good faith. Misguided, certainly; tone-deaf, for sure; damaging, apparently... but it seems clear to me that he wants to improve Wikivoyage and the edits he makes are directed toward that goal. Behavior correction is difficult but I feel that we owe it to ourselves to try it before bringing the hammer down too hard on someone who has the Wiki's best interests at heart, however misguided.
LtPowers (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally, my assumptions of good faith end when it becomes apparent that the user feels no remorse for any disruption they have caused, is not actually sorry for breaking the rules, and makes only perfunctory conciliations to assure that he won't break that one specific rule again. For this user, that point was long ago. Texugo (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a sign of obstinacy or a lack of understanding, not acting in bad faith. 118 has stated: "Now that a reasoned explanation has been given, I will change my templated welcome and wait a while before raising the topic of table of contents position in another venue"; "ultimately if it's a question of you or me giving up, I think it much better that I go because you are by far the more valuable member of the community in terms of developing and improving this travel guide"; "I sincerely regret my intemperate edit summary"; and "To educate/reform me. I'm genuinely puzzled as to how and why you see my edits as disruptive". Baby steps, and certainly not enough all on their own (which is why I suggested an immediate block on next offense) but indicative of good faith. LtPowers (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The user's tone throughout this thread was a continuation of the problem. You have a very forgiving nature not to notice that, in my opinion. That may be to your credit as a person, but I don't think it would have been helpful to the site to let him slide while continuing to try to divert discussion to extraneous matters of policy and act like he's being persecuted for his identity or opinions, not his disruptive behavior. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(reindent) Precisely. 118 was blocked for three days, not permanently. When his block expires, he'll be able to edit as before, hopefully armed with the knowledge that we're serious about the need for his conduct to change and that we're not all talk.

I do not at all think we were intemperate in blocking 118; if anything, given the fact that the community had made repeated unsuccessful attempts to counsel him about the problems we had with him, it would have been justifiable to block him sooner. (Parenthetically, the assumption some of us have that he and Frank are the same person may have actually worked to his benefit in this case; many of us excused the behavior of both of them because many of their contributions were constructive, and in terms of proportion of "good" edits to "bad" ones, Frank's contributions have been more constructive than 118's.)

At any rate, 118 will be able to edit again soon and prove his good faith – that is, if he isn't already; I can't recall exactly what day we put the ban into effect – and I do hold out some hope for him as a contributor to our community.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not directed at anyone in particular, but: while I certainly hope that the aforementioned admins realize that while they have the right to have an opinion, it is the consensus of the community that should be respected, I do not think it productive to keep dragging their names down in the mud.
Perhaps we should start looking at some of Andre's proposals. In regards to the sockpuppetry issue, this is one of the objections that I currently have to there being local CUs on this site, and in my mind would need to be resolved before then. --Rschen7754 03:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Dragging anyone's name down was never my intention; far from it. I hope LtPowers and Peter Southwood know that despite occasional differences in opinion, I nonetheless have a great deal of respect for them, as editors, administrators and fellow members of the Wikivoyage community. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this. My strong remarks above were based on the misconception that unanimity was being required for decision-making, not disrespect for minority opinion in this case. Rschen, what posture do you believe we should have toward sockpuppets? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's something that we should discuss at some point. en.wikipedia probably has the most comprehensive policy (w:en:WP:SOCK), but there's aspects of it that make things a lot harder. I like Wikidata's policy (d:WD:SOCK), though it hasn't been around for long. Ironically Commons and Meta don't have a written down policy, but I don't think that's a good idea for here. --Rschen7754 06:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikidata policy page has the virtue of being easily understandable; by contrast, I find Wikipedia's policy page overly complicated and hard to read. However, it mentions things that are omitted on Wikidata, and might be important. Why wait to discuss this? We just need a good page for discussion. Perhaps the discussion page for this page might be best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Or Wikivoyage talk:CheckUser. Though it should be linked from the RFC page, wherever it happens. --Rschen7754 06:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thread started in Wikivoyage talk:CheckUser. This may be the first time a non-user talk page has been created before the article itself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

User:92.43.68.68Edit

I'm posting this just because it's a long suspension: 3 months, for this. Previous blocks, if you'd like to see them. It would be good to never see this vandal again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but since we can't indefinitely block IPs, I don't see any other option. --Rschen7754 09:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Q: Why can't we indefinitely block IP's? It's unprecedented, but that's quite different than saying it's impossible. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is we have no way of knowing when the IP has changed hands. --Rschen7754 09:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not that it's impossible; it's just considered a bad idea for the reason Rschen stated. LtPowers (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


User:124.150.84.161Edit

Nominate this IP for ban because of clear vandalism: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=2492518&oldid=2492517 Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I already blocked that IP for 2 hours as an initial step. Many vandals go away pretty quickly when they are ignored and then blocked, but the problem is that vandals who are persistent often change IPs. For example, there's one vandal that just likes to turn everything into lowercase, and I don't think s/he has used the same IP more than 4 times. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Once episode of vandalism is not justification for a ban. Powers (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, but there were several examples. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Has he reformed already? --118.93.237.66 04:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubt it. Vandalism and then reversion within 1 minute. But we can only see what s/he does in the future. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The 'reformed' edit had the comment "he is a terrorist", so I guess not actually reformed. That said, it seems this was a one off so I probably nominated too hastily. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree. I had already blocked that IP for 2 hours before I saw your nomination. There had already been 4 edits at that time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
One of which was not vandalism, and all of which were to the same article within a short period of time. That's only one incident in my book. The two-hour block was fine, but that doesn't require a nomination. Powers (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
No, and in fact, it was done without one, so your point is made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:118.93nzp and associated IP addressesEdit

First off, those of you who haven't been following the latest 118 drama may want to take a look at his talk page. To summarize, Ryan gave the user a formal warning on January 9 for disruptive editing of the type that earned him a ban the last time around. 118 responded belatedly that he would agree to stop editing Wikivoyage, though he failed to make it clear whether he intended to stop editing entirely or merely retire the 118.93nzp account. Furthermore, he immediately began editing anonymously from the IP address 210.246.47.112 and engaged in disruptive editing at least once using that address.

It's my opinion that the lack of clarity over the circumstances under which 118 would stop editing Wikivoyage was deliberate, and the anonymous editing is a way of circumventing the second user ban that he felt was impending. Obviously that's speculation, but part of the consensus in favor of 118's most recent ban, as stated by Ikan Kekek, was that a longer ban would be "considered as automatic if there is further deliberate violation of policy, obnoxious argumentation style of the type we've seen in this thread, or/and attempts to argue about unrelated policy in inappropriate places (including but not limited to new users' user talk pages, user ban threads, and discussion threads about unrelated policy issues)."

Assuming the length of the first ban would be one day, Ikan proposed a 3-day ban in case of recidivism; the original ban ended up being 3 days. Thus, following the procedures spelled out at Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks, I propose a two-week ban for 118 as well as all anonymous IP addresses he is known to have used. Despite the fact that Ikan's wording that we agreed on allows any admin to institute a user ban on 118 under these circumstances without consultation on this page, I felt it would be best to seek the scrutiny of other Wikivoyagers because of the proposal to also include the anonymous IP addresses, as well as the potential for confusion as to how long the term of the ban should be.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I have a generally positive and respectful working relationship with 118, whether he is in fact an alter ego of Frank or a different person residing in New Zealand - it's just strange to me that there are several accounts that seem to edit pretty much identically to Frank and have the same or virtually the same positions on matters of policy, but that's irrelevant to me; I care only about their edits. And in this regard, I appreciate all the positive things that 118 does, and I also pretty much agree with some of the policy positions he holds that are at variance with current policy. It's just regrettable that he continues to be combative at times in ways that antagonize or/and upset other users, and that he continues to act unilaterally without respect for the process of change by consensus that this site uses.
This is just a long way of saying that while I feel no personal grievances against 118, I clearly understand the grounds for a further suspension and will support it. As a matter of fact, I think that in view of the grounds for his previous suspension and what would trigger a further one, we have been quite patient.
One question, though: How conclusive is it that the anonymous IP address is being used by the same individual as the 118 accounts? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
He admits it openly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I see.
In any case, in the event of a suspension, I hope 118 takes it as a break and returns afterwards to resume wikignoming. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
That all seems reasonable enough - if you can't be bothered to examine my actual edits.
Very few of my edits are actually deliberately contrary to current policy.
User:Texugo tried recently to make it mandatory for all images to be right aligned - and failed. If you examine many of my edits, you will see that many of them remove the redundant "right" in thumbnail syntaxes (since "right" is the default). I also often remove a fixed width specification where that lies within 10% of the current default thumbnail width of 220px (ie in the range 188-242px) since
1) If the default thumbnail size is ever raised, then those images will remain too small for most readers and too large for a minority
2) images specified in those ranges put an additional and unnecessary load on WMF servers
3) images specified in those fixed image width ranges flout the considered wishes of users who may have chosen a different width in their preferences. For some they will be displayed too large, for some, too small.
If users are really too technically challenged not to understand the advantages of leaving images in this range as an unspecified default thumbnail width, then the better way to deal with this is to enshrine this weird preference in policy - which I will then comply with.
What is current policy, is that editors should generally not alter the words of another without a manifestly good reason and intent.
Finally, may I repeat (ad nauseam?) that I am not Frank Buchholz, Alice, Tony1 or any of the other allegations. It's a measure of how surreal this whole business is that you continue to peddle them rather than run a checkuser. --118.93nzp (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I find it instructive that you obviously need the satisfaction of pushing me off the ledge yourself rather than having the patience and wisdom to wait another few days so that I can jump - as I've clearly promised Ryan I'll do - but then I suppose that's part of the traditional pattern of assuming bad faith - like most things I write, you probably don't believe me. --118.93nzp (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
User:AndreCarrotflower You do understand that, given the thousands of Vodafone and Telstraclear IP addresses that I've used, you are proposing to block a substantial proportion of the New Zealand population just because you want to show you're top dog? --118.93nzp (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
118, are you proposing to take a break? If so, when, and for how long? You have a point that Andre could have made a stronger case that you are continuing to make edits contrary to policy at times, and also making some comments whose tone offends some users. He could, for example, have cited remarks on User talk:118.93nzp. Also, as far as I'm concerned, nothing personal. I'd like you to stop using upright dimensions for thumbnails, even though I think your argument for them is meritorious, and it would be great if you would refrain from occasionally extreme-seeming language in argumentation. I'll let others detail more of the things you do that disturb them. But my point of view, really, is that there are so many good things you do that I wish you wouldn't do any of the things that can trigger a block of your account, and if the best way to head off a block is for you to just take a break for a few days and do something else, then come back, I think that could be good for all concerned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes.
I've stated that quite clearly on your own user talk page and at the Pub.
In fact, I believe it's precisely because User:Carrotflower knows I will be stopping editing in the next few days that he has nominated me now, lest a potential lynching victim cheat his posse by suicide.
Thanks for the kind words, Ikan Kekek, but the vast majority of the stuff that I do - whether it's viewed as positive or negative - is essentially trivial. I've never dared write any substantive articles because I know my many enemies would take great delight in vandalising them, while citing "policy" as they did so. One thing I've learned over the course of the better part of a decade, firstly as an IP for many a long year and only very vividly over the last 3 months using an account, is how vicious and hypocritical many of our admins are. They pretend that "the traveller comes first" but in the end it's their own egos and status as top dog that really comes first. Ryan could have proved me wrong in that analysis by pushing forward the SEO changes he knows will be effective in bringing us more readers - but he can never bring himself to do so because that would be to admit that Frank was right all along and we've been treading water the last year in terms of growing readership numbers. (edit conflict) --118.93nzp (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with Ikan here, except to say that rather than a voluntary break of a 'few days' I would instead encourage a voluntary break of 1 complete week (7 days). This is just to remove any ambiguity from the situation and give everyone some space. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
118, I think you really could help by dialing down the rhetoric a little. I understand if you have strong feelings in this context, but you do sometimes use language that sounds overwrought to me in other contexts. I've wondered for a long time whether there was a cultural element in your use of strong language and others' reactions to it, but in any case, you've seen over a lengthy period of time how others can react to it. The way I see it, the grievances some people have against you are really inasmuch as you sometimes use language in a way that disturbs them, and secondly inasmuch as you sometimes act unilaterally instead of by respecting the sometimes frustratingly slow and deliberative way decisions are made here by consensus, which many of us find frustrating at times but which most of us don't try to unilaterally buck. Suppose you're right that there are hypocritical admins. Will stating that make it more or less likely that your ideas will be agreed to, or that you will be permitted to continue editing here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Put at it's most simple, I'm in favour of the rule of law.
Most of us saw the result at Wikitravel when one "super-user" took it upon himself to flout policy that had been properly decided by reasoned discussion and consensus.
Now the plain fact is that Ryan did not bother to push for a policy to ban relative image sizing - let alone succeed in getting it added to our image policy. I've been using it for more than 4 years and nobody batted an eyelid when I used the "upright" thumbnail syntax during all those years. Immediately I create an account, he and Texugo and Powers follow me around nit-picking.
Had they ever bothered to get their preference for flouting registered users thumbnail image widths enshrined in policy I would have respected it (the same way I respect the 12h format, although my own preference is for the 24h format as being generally shorter and less ambiguous for most cultures on this planet).
Personally I have a preference for two letter abbreviations for days of the week: Mo, Tu, We, Th, Fr, Sa, Su. But, since that is clearly against established policy, I've never consciously made an edit that pushed my personal preference in that regard. Same with the spacing of units and their amounts. (Policy says they need a non-breaking space or no space at all, with a mild preference for the spaced version). --118.93nzp (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this thread perfectly encapsulates why, despite his many good contributions, the site would be better without 118 as part of it:
    • Refusal to assume good faith (literally, from above: "I suppose that's part of the traditional pattern of assuming bad faith"). 118 says that Andre is looking for a "lynching" rather than legitimately trying to deal with a difficult issue. My opposition to SEO changes is apparently because I "can never bring himself to do so because that would be to admit that Frank was right all along" (for the record, in addition to the concerns others have raised, I have said that I am deeply skeptical whether Frank's proposal will make any significant difference, much less the huge difference suggested, and thus doubt it is worth the work required). This habit of assuming bad faith has been consistent since 118 showed up and undermines a fundamental principle required for this, or any other, wiki to function successfully.
    • Lack of civility towards anyone 118 disagrees with: "I believe it's precisely because User:Carrotflower knows I will be stopping editing in the next few days that he has nominated me now, lest a potential lynching victim cheat his posse by suicide." (numerous other examples can be found in the user's edit history).
    • Inability to let things go. For the hundredth time a discussion has been side-tracked with forum shopping about relative image sizing and SEO issues. Numerous suggestions that this behavior is counter-productive and requests to "let it go" have been ignored.
While there are other concerns that are relevant to a block, I feel that the above are the most significant as they result in discussions on this site being poisoned by 118's participation - users with contrary positions are insulted and accused of bad faith, the issue is shopped to all manner of irrelevant future discussions, and the result is that people have to either try to ignore 118 or else avoid discussions in which 118 is involved altogether. While I've only cited this thread for proof, should further examples be needed the user's edit history in the Wikivoyage namespace is littered with more. As a result, after many months of trying to work with this user I'm convinced that, despite any good contributions, the site will be healthier without 118 contributing.
Clarification: I support a block on the 118.93nzp user account and any other IPs currently suspected of being in use by this user. There is no need to block past IPs used by this user unless they are used again. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I realize this is really a side issue, but in fairness, it should be pointed out that User:Globetrotter19 seems not to have minded 118's efforts to help him with his English on his user page, whatever anyone else thinks of it. —The preceding comment was added by Ikan Kekek (talkcontribs)
Just because noone "pressed charges" in this case does not mean that it's OK to go rewriting other people's user pages. Editing others' user pages is still a breach of etiquette that could easily cause offense. Texugo (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I basically agree with all that Ryan said. It is exceedingly tiresome to see so many discussions get hijacked by forum shopping on the same pet subjects, something I have pointed out as disruptive, yet he tells me he "reserves the right" to do it anyway. He constantly misrepresents others' intentions, as he has done on this very page to me, Andre, Ryan and perhaps others. And I haven't seen an ounce of believable evidence that he recognizes these behaviors as wrong or disruptive. As it looks from here, he might be sorry he got caught out on it, but I am finding it harder and harder to believe he feels any real regret for the disruptive behavior itself (if indeed this disruption is not part of the fun for him). Even his offer to take a voluntary break feels more like a disingenuous attempt just to "get us off his back" for a while until the next round begins. Texugo (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, I support the two-week ban as well, but like Powers below, I somehow doubt even that will do much good. Texugo (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support two-week ban. User needs to learn that policy is not invalidated just because we haven't inscribed it on a policy document yet. User has admitted that he intended to "ape [Alice's] style", and yet continues to express amazement that he was suspected of being Alice's sockpuppet. User exhibits absolutely zero cognizance that his mode of interaction might be justifiably grating on other contributors, as well as zero awareness of community norms. I don't see how a two-week ban will solve these problems, but at least it will mitigate them for the duration. Powers (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Texugo (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Many of you are effectively calling me a liar.
I've said quite clearly that I will stop editing (either using this account or as an IP) until I'm welcome here again. You've ignored that statement and prefer to spend time pouring calumny on me instead.
You also continually call me a liar when I state quite clearly that I have never edited using the account of Frank, Tony, Alice (and am physically unable to since I don't know their passwords) or any of the other innumerable allegations. (Being fair, I brought the Alice allegation upon myself by aping her style right at the start when I was trying to defend the outrageous treatment of Tony by parody.)
Few of the times when I've tried to assist with translations, etc, in User name space have been resented by the user eg:

http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASomeIrishPerson&diff=2457408&oldid=2457328

However, all of that is trivial stuff compared to this breathtaking new idea that policy is not just what is enshrined in policy pages (usually after discussion) but is also the thoughts and preferences of super-users like Powers, Ryan and Texugo - even if they've failed to establish a consensus for those preferences or even, in some cases not bothered, or quite breathtakingly, tried and failed to have those preferences and predilections enshrined as policy.--118.93nzp (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
118, what is your specific plan in terms of when you will stop editing and when you may start again? If you make that plan clear, you may save everyone a lot of trouble. I think you set up this situation for yourself by saying you would take a break from editing and then continuing to edit. A little more clarity will help. Also, I think most of us consider the alleged sockpuppetry not to be really relevant, only a passing question, so it's best not to focus on that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I had planned to stop editing after my last shift ended at 05:00, Tuesday 18 February 2014 (New Zealand Summer Time) since after I start my new rank I wouldn't have time for much editing. I hadn't previously thought about when I would be back, but assumed there would be no change with our Search Engine Optimisation and consequently relatively few new users here to change the "old boys club" mentality for many months - certainly more than 6 months at the very earliest. Obviously I hope we do change the culture here so that it is easier to make improvements to our current policies and then have the same policies for everyone to follow but I'm really not hopeful when I see edits like this one abusing admin rollback tools to insert periods after "Ave" and and "St" in listings in knowing contradiction to our existing wv:abbr policy.

[unindent] I'm perfectly OK with your taking a break starting on Feb. 18. If you want to make it 6 months, that's up to you. If you stop posting things that antagonize people in the interim (including in this thread), I think everyone will probably be OK with your taking a break of at least 2 weeks. And if we can all agree to that, we can probably also agree to freeze this thread and stop saying unpleasant things to one another, understanding that new unpleasantness from you (however justified you feel it is) would likely cause us to reopen this thread and make a quick decision to suspend you. Shall we take a vote on the proposal that you will take a break of at least 2 weeks from this site, starting on February 18? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There are no new sockpuppet allegation, and there are no super-users imposing their wills. There is only you, grating on the nerves of the community, willfully going against the grain and pushing people's buttons in a highly disrespectful, self-righteous, and remorseless manner, and then continually trying to blame your woes on others. If anyone appears to be calling you a liar, it is because you have given people every reason to distrust you. Texugo (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
But it's OK to keep harping on about the old ones that have never been substantiated? That's neither un-civil nor disruptive nor downright offensive, is it? --118.93nzp (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sadly, as regards 118's behavior, this discussion has proceeded more-or-less exactly as I thought it would.
Several points:
  1. Regarding "assuming bad faith": Before he was even nominated for a user ban, 118 unilaterally promised to leave Wikivoyage. Then he promptly reneged on that with his anonymous IP edits, while simultaneously still making vague promises of "stopping editing in the next few days" at some undefined time. When a user talks out of both sides of his mouth like that, how is it unreasonable to conclude that he's trying to pull the wool over our eyes? Assuming good faith doesn't mean being naïve, and it certainly doesn't mean that each individual thing a user says or does needs to be considered in a vacuum, rather than taken in the context of an already-established pattern of behavior.
  2. 118 asks me if I "understand that, given the thousands of Vodafone and Telstraclear IP addresses that [he's] used, [I am] proposing to block a substantial proportion of the New Zealand population". Given the fact that my proposal did not call for a rangeblock of those IP addresses but only for a block of the addresses he's been known to use in the past, could this not be construed as an implied threat of block evasion on 118's part? (Much like the more explicit threat he made the last time he was userbanned?)
  3. While it's laudable that we've refrained from making sockpuppetry accusations regarding 118 and Frank, Alice, et al. (even as we've acknowledged where necessary that accusations have been made in the past), nonetheless I think this clause in 118's original user ban nomination is worth reiterating. We should be on the lookout in case Frank and/or Alice's accounts come active again in 118's absence, and be ready to take action if necessary.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I add up all the time and tens of feet of discussion page space spent debating Frank/Alice/118/whoever he calls himself in this iteration. I weigh that against thousands of persnickety (though often technically correct) grammar edits that comprise the bulk of his contributions. I am left with the overwhelming assurance that this troll is far more trouble than he's worth. I'm in favor of a full, final, IP-level, permanent ban of this sad lonely creature, so we can all take a breath and get back to writing travel guides.SpendrupsForAll (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I completely oppose a permanent ban and hope that no-one else is suggesting one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I too would strongly oppose a permanent ban for this user. My thoughts are very similar to Ikan's comments above: my dealings with 118 have been constructive on many occasions and I believe that the vast majority of his edits are made in what he believes to be the best interests of WV, even if this sometimes goes against established consensus. Indeed, much of his copyediting is of great value. I would not oppose a short-term block in this case, but like Ikan, I see little point in prolonging the alleged sockpuppetry saga. --Nick talk 21:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
To Nicholasjf21: Regarding the sockpuppetry allegations, because all of the behaviors that earned 118 this user ban nomination were performed under the 118.93nzp username or anonymous IP addresses that were acknowledged to be the same user, the question of whether or not 118 is a sockpuppet of Frank, Alice et al. is of very little relevance here. However, many of us, including myself, are of the opinion that these accounts are likely the work of a sockpuppeteer, and accordingly I do feel that a bit of extra vigilance is in order for the short-term future. What harm could there possibly be in merely keeping a close eye on the situation? It doesn't even require any action on our part. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Andre, with regard to Frank and Alice, I agree with what you are saying about keeping a watch and being ready to take action if necessary. I think that 118.93, Frank and Alice should be treated as different people. Editing by any one of those 3 should be not considered evasion of a block (or voluntary break) on one of the others. However, all 3 are aware of the editing that is considered problematic. If Frank or Alice start problematic editing, they should be treated independently, but moves could be made quickly to give a warning and, if necessary, proceed to escalating blocks. Nurg (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel that a short-term block (of a significant time length) would be most appropriate. I can see why people are advocating for a permanent ban, but I don't feel that we're quite there yet. If the behavior does not change after this two week ban, then the case for a more long-term ban will be strengthened. --Rschen7754 03:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, only User:SpendrupsForAll has advocated for a permanent ban, and I don't believe that is valid action anyway under standard procedure (i.e. the gradual and incremental lengthening of ban periods) Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see no need for an exception to the prescription put forth in Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks. As many others have stated above, I hold out very little hope that 118's behavior will reform; however, what very well may happen depending on what the motivations for his behavior may be is that two weeks will be long enough for 118 to grow bored of trolling Wikivoyage and move on elsewhere. If that doesn't do the trick, the next infraction will earn him three months, and so forth. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Whatever - I have no idea what a block of any length would achieve in practice. They would just pass the relay baton to the next person, interesting to see who of them that's gonna be. Or perhaps we'll see a new timely Zinepost article? If their club isn't disintegrating, that is. --ϒpsilon (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather not speak ill of someone who's not here to comment and not in my opinion relevant to this thread, but I will just say that unlike some people, 118 has made a lot of constructive edits, so while I clearly understand the basis for another block of his account and support the block if we cannot agree on a clear proposal for him to take a voluntary break, I think that he has been motivated by wanting to improve this site, as he sees it, and not to destroy or damage the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I think a block is more appropriate, as this should not have to be a negotiation where we are bound to stoically give a single disruptive user equal weight against a whole group of normal users fed up with him. And it's not as if this is the first time this user has earned a block. Regardless, voluntary break or block, we shouldn't pretend like this never happened. It should still count as strike two, and when a third time comes around, I'll be supporting a three-month block then, whether this break was voluntary or not. Texugo (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there seems to be a negotiation aspect to this, which could have been easily avoided had the voluntarily break had been taken straight away. I must ask why a few extra days of editing is really so important to anyone? I do nevertheless support Ikan Kekek in wanting to extend 118.93nzp every reasonable chance, although doing so should not require us to draw this out much longer. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
From what 118 posted above, he proposes to take a break starting on Tuesday evening, New Zealand time, which would be Monday across the International Date Line. That is very soon. I think we should agree to cease discussion here and consider that, providing 118 commits no further violations of policy or decorum in the interim, the clock will start to run at 4:00 AM Greenwich Mean Time on Monday. I certainly agree that this would be Strike Two, either way, but it would be good to just stop spending time discussing things, if 118 is in fact prepared to cease posting by Tuesday. Shall we hold this discussion in abeyance, unless 118 takes a further step in violation of policy or decorum, in which case he will be subjected to a 2-week suspension right away by any admin? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm OK with that, as long as beforehand he leaves no more antagonizing messages on this site and refrains from welcoming new users (the latter being mostly because he can not support those users if he will be gone for a couple of weeks, although it is also rather weird to welcome people whilst under ban nomination)
118.93nzp, I hope you understand that Ikan Kekek is doing a lot to support you in this difficult situation, and therefore supporting him back would be a great demonstration of good faith. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I wish this user may reform one day for the sake of those who still support him otherwise this world is not fair and that is how sometime people payback to those who supported them once. --Saqib (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I strongly oppose anything short of a userban. If 118 takes a voluntary break, where's the guarantee that he will, as promised, stop posting for two whole weeks? I think it's dangerous - both in terms of 118's proclivity for editing from anonymous IP addresses and the larger message we'd be sending vis-à-vis our willingness to enforce our own policies and to follow through on the terms we'd laid out earlier - to effectively allow 118 to unilaterally dictate the terms of his own period away from Wikivoyage. Peter and Jan left Wikivoyage in disgust because we were letting the inmates run the asylum, and I would have hoped that would have taught us some lessons on the consequences of being too trusting. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with you. I don't know why he should get to dictate terms. Texugo (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where this comment falls in, but any time-limited ban should probably start over if there is an evasion of the blocks. This could apply to more than just this case. --Rschen7754 16:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
No-one would be dictating terms; we'd be agreeing to something so as to stop talking about it. And I fail to see how it would be more dangerous, either way. As User:Rschen7754 says, in case of any violation, we can block at that time. We could also set things up so that any block evasion would incur a 3-month block. But if you all want to block, do it for 2 weeks right away, so we can stop wasting time on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
To Ikan Kekek: I guess, then, that I'm not sure what you are proposing. What do you mean when you say "in case of any violation"? Do we block 118 if he posts at all during those two weeks (cf. Rschen's reference to "block evasion")? If so, and if we're also in agreement that a voluntary break of two weeks still qualifies as "strike two" on the scheme of escalating user blocks, how is that different from a userban? On the other hand, if by "violation" you mean only disruptive edits, frankly the Wikivoyage community doesn't have a terribly good track record of following through when it comes to statements like "we can block at that time". After Ryan's original warning, more than a month's worth of disruptive edits transpired before anyone stepped up to the plate and nominated 118 for a user ban - and that's assuming Ryan warned him on the first offense, which is far from a certainty. How much are we going to let slide? As much as before? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
If 118 doesn't respond very soon (in a matter of hours, I would say) to Ikan's proposal about ceasing editing at Monday 4AM GMT, subject to the additional conditions suggested by Andrewssi2, then we should close this nomination and institute the proposed two week ban. Since some people prefer a voluntary cessation of editing, if 118 agrees to cease all editing as of 4AM Monday I'm fine with that, but it should be understood that anything even remotely controversial in the interim would be grounds for implementing the block immediately - as an example, last night's addition of a second welcome message to a WMF staff member's page that questions whether that person is really a staff member of WMF [16] seems way out of line for someone who is being considered for a block. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The time he gave was 05:00, Tuesday 18 February 2014 (New Zealand Summer Time), which is 16:00 Monday GMT, not 4am. Nurg (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
For the record, we do check the authenticity of (WMF) accounts at the global level or at en.wikipedia; it's rare that one would show up here first. --Rschen7754 21:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Rschen7754, regardless of whether we should be verifying accounts that use "(WMF)", the insinuation that this user was impersonating a WMF staff member is another example of 118 assuming bad faith by default - even the simplest investigation into the user's global history makes clear that the user in question is a WMF staff member. If we want to allow 118 to voluntarily stop editing in a few days rather than block him, it needs to be a condition that any more behavior of the type that led to the block nomination would be grounds for immediately implementing the block. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
That was already a condition from the time of 118's first ban, yet no one followed through - which is exactly why I oppose anything short of another user ban. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Andre is correct on this. For the record, by violation, I meant any edits whatsoever during the 2-week period in question. The only difference between a 2-week ban and a voluntary 2-week cessation of editing would be the presumptively voluntary nature of the latter. Otherwise, there would be no difference, and any attempt at the equivalent of block evasion would be met with a 3-month ban by any admin. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand; I'm just stating for the record. --Rschen7754 02:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Time for actionEdit

I plan to arrive home from work tonight about midnight U.S. Eastern Standard Time (05:00 UTC). If we haven't heard anything from 118 by then or unless some unusual development transpires, in accordance with Ryan's comment timestamped 21:43, 14 February 2014 I'd like to put the proposed ban into effect. It does us no good to talk and talk in circles if we're not going to take action. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. 118 needs to confirm his agreement with the proposed terms of a voluntary but enforceable 2-week cessation of editing. Otherwise, we should go ahead with the ban, so as not to waste more time on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  Done. 2-week user bans were instituted against User:118.93nzp and the IP addresses 118.93.67.66 and 210.246.47.112. If I missed any, kindly let me know. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
They have used quite a number of other IPs but I don't think any more need be blocked unless they get used for block evasion during the block period. Nurg (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
That didn't take long. I have blocked 210.246.60.229 for suspected block evasion. Nurg (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
And 210.246.55.63. Nurg (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Per what has been discussed above, any further attempts at block evasion should result in all blocks being extended to three months. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If that is 118 then I am rather disappointed. Should we put up a 'suspected block evasion' rule for the Telsta-NZ range? It would just mark the edits rather than block them at this stage. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Psuedo code would be something like 'IF 'ip edit' AND Range('Telstra_NZ') THEN Mark_Edit ('Possible Block Evasion by 118NZ')
Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Might not be a good idea (see w:WP:DENY). If 118 reverts to his usual behavior, it will be obvious it's him; if he doesn't and sticks to wikignomish edits, then that's the behavior we wanted and it's okay if we don't identify that it's him. Powers (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Powers here. Abuse filter or not, dealing with persistent block evasion still requires a great deal of effort that could be better devoted to writing a travel guide (q.v. the Australian IP vandal). If we can avoid escalating the situation by provoking 118, we'll save ourselves a lot of frustration. To my knowledge, we don't even have a persistent block evader as yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. In any case it seems that he is respecting the ban thus far. If he can keep it up then that would bode well for future positive contributions after the ban expires. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

ConclusionEdit

I believe that User:118.93nzp has kept to the conditions of the ban and has not attempted any editing in the past two weeks. Can we say that this matter is now closed? (and maybe archive this discussion?) Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes, archive the discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Telstra vandalEdit

User:123.211.111.136 etc.Edit

Hi, everyone. I've been dealing with a user who uses various IPs, generally adding naked names of sometimes completely unexplained and unclear points of interest in "See" and long lists of often exclusively red links in "Go next."

But more seriously, the user has a habit of copying and pasting, not only from Wikipedia, but worse, from sites that have standard copyrights. I just blocked User:2.33.233.119 for 1 day for copying and pasting directly from http://www.worldholidaydestinations.com/australia/sa/woomera/, but I also attached the following warning:

"This is a serious offense, and further violations are likely to lead to all of the IPs you have used being blocked for a week."

Based on posting style and behavior, the user in question would appear to also use the following IPs:

User:123.211.111.136 (blocked for 3 days on Sept. 15 for copyright violation from Lonely Planet), User:58.164.158.55 (blocked for 1 day on Sept. 11 for copyvio from WP and general heedlessness), User:124.186.241.240 (blocked for 30 minutes on Sept. 1 for ignoring his/her user talk page and threatened with a longer block if s/he continued with copyvio from WP), User:1.120.150.75 (blocked a couple of times in late August for vandalism - deleting content the user put up in the first place - but otherwise consistent in behavior with the other IPs, in terms of copyvio from WP, posting listings devoid of information, and ignoring his/her user talk page)

I may be missing an IP or two, as Frank stated on my user talk page that the user has used 7 IPs (see User talk:Ikan Kekek#Harsh?). But in any case, I would like your support in suspending all these IPs for a week the next time any one of them violates the copyright of a site with standard copyrights, or for 3 days the next time the user violates the copyright of Wikipedia, with appropriate escalation at the next similar offense. Do I have your support? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. Pashley (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. If it's technically possible I would prefer that the IP's be able to edit their talk pages as this is a quite bizarre case. All the IP's edit from South Australia or the Brisbane area (very long distance commuter(s)!) and most of their edits just give other editors extra work to do tracking down copyright violations and deciding whether empty (and non-standard) section titles should be removed on sight or whether the page should be watched for an hour or two to see if any substantive content is added. There have been some useful edits - some of them correcting very fine nuances of English grammar and punctuation, so I don' think this is children or people without adequate English skills. I'm a bit busy attending to a leaking roof right now, but when I get the chance I'll try and track down some of the other IP's - they have all, without exception, been Australian. The other strange feature is the indiscriminate geographical spread and rapidity of some of the edits - I thought at first that it was some strange new bot. --W. Frankemailtalk 00:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to exempt the talk pages of the various IPs from blocks in case of the kind of multi-IP block I propose to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Apply normal process. I don't see much exceptional here, and the person doing it is probably well intentioned but not understanding what they are doing. We're only talking about a handful of IPs, and we've no real indication they are the same user. Apply a short block if they don't respond to messages left, increasing if the behaviour persists until they engage on their talk page. --Inas (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
If you examine the posting pattern, it will become as clear to you that all these IPs are the same user as it is to me and Frank. And all these IPs have already been blocked individually. I disagree that anything less than, at a bare minimum, a 24-hour block of all these IPs would have any effect, and I'd strongly argue for at least 3 days after the next offense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
You're dealing with it, so I'm happy to go with your recommendation. However, I really would observe that they appear to me to be a misguided contributor rather than a vandal, and the object is to establish dialogue. Do what is required with that objective in mind. --Inas (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting an immediate 3-month suspension, but this is a user that has never replied to any message in the talk pages for any of his/her IPs, so I am not very hopeful of establishing a dialogue. About the best I might hope for is that a global suspension of a few days might be met not with yet another IP that needs to be blocked but a little silent reading of some of those user talk pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I've noticed the behavior of those IP's (very likely just one person editing eg. from home and from school) and that they do not respond on their talk pages to your messages. I've myself made a geolocation check for two of those IP's and they were both from Brisbane. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well there's really nothing that we can do except play whack-a-mole with these IPs... --Rschen7754 06:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure enough, one of the IPs in question is guilty of a fresh copyvio of a site with a standard copyright. See this edit and Frank's latest post to User talk:1.120.150.75. Out of respect for Inas, I will ban all these IPs for 3 days this time, but the next copyright violation of any kind will incur a 1-week penalty, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:124.177.165.57, User:1.120.3.182‎ et al.Edit

I'm not sure if this should go through the ban mechanism. 124.177.165.57 is basically adding a lot of irrelevant edits in many articles throughout the world, such as headings with no content, or 'historic buildings' as a listing. Can someone more experienced than me have a look at their history and suggest a correct course of action? Is this even a problem? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried communicating with the user to suggest that their edits are not exactly helpful? --Rschen7754 07:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No I haven't. I will write something on their talk page, although I'd still appreciate someone's second opinion. Is this person's edits positive or negative to WV? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
In my mind, this falls in the category of "good faith, but bad edits." Blocking should not be a first resort in a case like this, but if all else fails, it may be a last resort. --Rschen7754 07:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Because it is an IP address user, I have some doubts as to whether they will be responsive to the talk page message. However I have left a message so let's see is a response is forthcoming. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be amazed if this isn't the same editor that commutes between South Australia and Brisbane and has caused Ikan Kekek an amazing amount of work. Very weird editor that has some sort of automated editing process going judging by the rapidity. Most of the substantive edits comes from WP but with some copyvio's from other sites thrown in for good measure. If I'm right you're unlikely to get a response. His edits have improved a little over the last couple of weeks and the User talk page should, of course, not be blocked. --W. Frankemailtalk 16:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I have yet to pick up clear copyvios from this IP. If any take place, I would immediately put a warning on the IP's user talk page, and follow up with a 1-day block for any subsequent ones. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
<Mistake: Please ignore> --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree, Frank. This is the same user I suspended for 3 days for copyright violation. Still a problematic editor, but from what I've seen, no longer copying and pasting verbatim, with the possible exception of this (and still, I didn't find an exact match in a Google search — maybe I didn't search well enough). Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Did the user respond to the 3 day suspension? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
There has never been any post by any of the user's IPs to any talk page, ever. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is anything that can be done then. The user certainly isn't being malicious in any way, just frequently pointless (such as adding the word 'Beach' or 'High street' as things to do into an article and nothing else). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Unless and until the IP user resumes engaging in copyright violation, nothing can really be done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
User:1.120.3.182‎ has been making many irrelevant edits, with seemingly no way to catch their attention. I believe that they are the same problem user with similar IP address from Australia. Recently they have made significant edits to the Wikivoyage:Mapmaking_Expedition article in a manner that can be categorized as 'unintentional vandalism'. Since there is no way to communicate with them (attempted many times in the past) can I request a 3 day ban in order to try and get their attention? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a 3 days block. --Saqib (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support In view of the fact that this is pretty clearly the same user as the 5 IPs I previously blocked for 3 days for copyright violation, and the user never responds to any messages to his/her user talk page but has lessened copyright violations since the previous block, a new block of 3 days to 8 IP (the 5 previous ones and the 2 news ones) seems appropriate for the current violations, which are more in the nature of edit warring than copyright violation, although there are also one or two relatively recent instances of uncredited copy-paste from Wikipedia, which should be mentioned in any block message on the user talk pages for all these IPs. See here and here - the last one from a different IP that should be included in any block: [17]. I would suggest that a third block to this user for any reason last for one week. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a 1 week block. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks like there has been additional edit warring since last night, so I do support a 1-week block. If there's no objection by tomorrow, let's do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
User:1.120.3.182 reinserted "World maps" in Wikivoyage:Mapmaking Expedition, thereby triggering the 1-week block from me. I will block all other known IPs of this user and post to his/her user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ikan. I really hope the user will respond to this. Considering the frequency of their edits, 1 week should get their attention at least. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I hope so. There's nothing whatsoever hateful about this user, if s/he would only engage in a discussion with us and work collaboratively. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like they are back: Special:Contributions/124.187.103.207 . I guess for now we just need to keep an eye on it, although the one week ban has not prompted them to engage with us. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
No. But again, unless they violate specific policies, such as by posting material copied and pasted from other websites, there is no action that we should take. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Anytime a message is left on a user's talk page, a huge orange notification comes up on the top of the screen to alert them to it. This is as true of IP users as it is of registered users. Enough notifications have been left on the various IP talk pages imploring the user to engage us, in addition to the increasingly lengthy blocks, that I can't see the failure to respond to them as anything other than willful. Therefore, in my judgment, this user is indeed engaging in disruptive behavior (albeit of a passive nature) and should continue to be subject to blocks of increasing duration. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
What's your proposal? A block of how long for ignoring how many user talk posts? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The last time this user was blocked, it was a for a week, right? Two weeks is the next rung on the ladder, I think. Then a month if it continues past that. Additionally, if it goes on for a long enough time, we might start talking about a rangeblock or other more extreme measures, but I don't want to get too far ahead of myself, obviously.
For me, the issue is not the edits themselves but the lack of any response to community concerns about them. For example, if the user is a newbie who doesn't understand how talk pages work but was editing in good faith, you might think he would make some indication of the comments that have been directed at him elsewhere - on the pages that he edits? In his edit summaries? In the Pub? It wouldn't technically be the correct place to address it, but at least it would be a gesture of goodwill from him. Hell, at this point I'd take any positive change in the user's behavior at all. However, no such things have happened in the long history of us attempting to deal with this vandal, and I use the word "vandal" intentionally. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the last block was for a week. But let's agree on procedure. Is what you're suggesting something like this: An additional block of the next-longer duration after 24 hours of ignoring a new talk page message? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the block should go into effect if a warning is placed on the user's talk page and the next edit the user makes is not a response to that warning. I know I, personally, sometimes go for 24 hours without signing on to Wikivoyage - but if the user makes another edit, that's evidence that s/he has logged onto Wikivoyage and should therefore know about the talk page messages, but is continuing to willfully ignore them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Unless there are any objections, I'd like to leave a note on this user's talk page informing him that his vandalism has been reverted, and any future edits that precede a response to the talk page message – vandalistic or not, from this IP address or from any other IP address that follows his editing pattern – will be grounds for escalating blocks as detailed in this comment. Also, if any other users who happen across edits of this nature on the Recent Changes log could please continue to indicate as much on this thread. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with this, and I'll look with interest to see what you've reverted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
All right then. I'm still out and about and using my mobile phone at present, but as soon as I get in front of an actual computer, I will type the message up.
Also, just so we're on the same page about this aspect as well, I envision that any subsequent block would be applied to all known IP addresses of the user, rather than just the one that made the edit that triggered it.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, in case of any block, for it to have any real effect, it would be necessary to block all known IP addresses that seem to be used by the same user, based on editing style. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning messages per above have been left at User talk:1.120.3.182, User talk:1.120.150.75, User talk:2.33.233.119, User talk:58.164.158.55, User talk:123.211.111.136, User talk:124.177.165.57, User talk:124.186.241.240, and User talk:124.187.123.207 User talk:124.187.103.207 (oops). Again, if any other Wikivoyagers spot edits that match this vandal's pattern, please bring it up on this thread so that appropriate action can be taken. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks AndreCarrotflower for taking the time to craft clear and comprehensive warnings and follow our policies. I know this takes a lot of time and can be frustrating, but it always better in the long run - especially in this particularly baffling case. --118.93.67.66 03:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks AndreCarrotflower . I also believe that it is more likely that the user is ignoring the warnings rather than just not seeing them. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your action, too, as it's been difficult to patrol this IP user's edits, when s/he ignores all attempts to communicate about them. I hope this message snaps him/her out of his/her stupor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Oof. That didn't take long... -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Copy-paste from Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:58.165.81.123 et al.Edit

It looks like our problematic Australian IP user - the one whose suspensions are documented above - is back. I just warned him/her that if s/he doesn't reply to his/her user talk page within 24 hours, all the IPs s/he has used will be suspended again - this time, probably for a month. No further action needs to be taken right now, except to watch this account and other IP users for placement of loads of red links they don't then create articles for, directly plagiarized or poorly paraphrased "Understand" sections or sentences from Wikipedia and other sites (Wikimapia in a case described at User talk:58.165.81.123), and undescribed words or phrases given in lieu of entries in "See" and "Do." Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if reblocking all the IPs again is necessary, it may just be a dynamic IP and the user may never return. --Rschen7754 08:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The previous block action was effective for a while, and frankly it is a cheap way to push back against this behavior. As far as I know we do not have any other tools. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
We could try blocking only this IP, but this user returns repeatedly and will probably eventually come back with a different IP. But the game of whack a mole seems necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As a precautionary measure, I'm in favor of blocking all IP addresses known to exhibit this pattern. I'll be watching the proceedings closely, and I'll also be watching for any further edits by that IP address, in which case I hope no one takes issue if I institute the block immediately (per my message on Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#User:124.177.165.57 now User:1.120.3.182‎ timestamped 21:09, 2 November 2013). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
...looks like I spoke too soon; there are seven edits from this user timestamped to have taken place after Ikan left his talk page message. Commence blockage. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Suspected return under 117.120.16.134. Whack-a-mole once more? —The preceding comment was added by Andrewssi2 (talkcontribs) 04:16, 26 November 2013‎ (UTC)
Actually, it may not be the same user. Suggest monitor for now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The behavior of user 124.185.183.51 seems to indicate that they are back: Special:Contributions/124.185.183.51 Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Given the lack of response and similar editing pattern I've applied the same 1 month block that was applied to the other accounts. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response Ryan. I hope everyone understands that this user is a special case. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe 124.185.183.51's edits constitute still more block evasion, Ryan. Per the plan of action Ikan and myself instituted in response to User 124.177.165.57 et al. (q.v. my comments timestamped 20:47, 2 November 2013), all known IP addresses of the user should be blocked for, or have their current blocks lengthened to, 3 months. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The user is back already - Special:Contributions/121.222.104.36 . Please block ASAP. Thanks! Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 months. Should we increase the block length to 6 months? Would anyone who is knowledgeable about the mechanics of range blocks like to try one? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Range is too big to block. --Rschen7754 22:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Too bad. And is a 6-month period too long? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd just leave it at 3 for now, since WHOIS tells me it's a relatively static IP; if it comes back as that IP then 6 months may be appropriate, but probably best to leave it for now. --Rschen7754 22:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:123.211.67.47Edit

Is this our Australian problem IP again? I don't propose a summary block - yet - but let's watch this IP's contributions closely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk page message. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
If it is, his edits are actually getting more informative, so there's a hope... --118.93nzp (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Taken directly from w:Coarsegold, California. And this is uncredited copypasta from w:Porterville, California. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I have a hunch this is not our Australian friend. To cite the most prominent example from his list of contributions: his work on Longwood (Florida) saw him add material, over the course of several separate edits, to provide information on an attraction that, while brief, was actually useful—a sharp contrast to the Aussie's habit of drive-by additions of context-free information and then never touching the article again. Your message on his talk page was a good failsafe, Ikan, but I don't think we need to be terribly concerned at this point. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks very similar to me so far. I'm not jumping to conclusions, but let's continue watching. If s/he leaves a user talk message, then I'll be sure they're not the same person. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Sentence taken from the same-subject Wikipedia article. Not a hanging offense, really, but I paraphrased it for less similarity. I'm seeing the pattern. Let's revisit this in a day or two. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I already think this is conclusive. See my examples of copypasta from Wikipedia. I have to get to sleep, but I would suggest that unless the user replies to that user talk page within an hour or so, the account should be blocked, with all copypasta from Wikipedia either reverted or suitably edited. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It does look like the same user. It seems they are not red linking every possible village in the area or adding listings such as 'High Street' which is definitely a positive development. However the copy and pasting from Wikipedia is still disruptive and I'd agree with a block. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I've heard enough. It was nearly an hour ago that Ikan put the message on this user's talk page, and since then he has made three edits without acknowledging the warning. I'm going to block this user for 6 months (the next level up from the previous one he was given), along with the other IPs that have been used. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:124.187.82.61Edit

Whack-a-mole request for our anonymous Australian user User:124.187.82.61 Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Message left at User talk:124.187.82.61. Should there be a few more edits with no reply, we need to block this account, too, although so far, the edits from it are not as bad as previous edits by (probably) the same IP user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
If it is the same user, then doesn't the existing ban apply? Agree that we should give a chance to respond (And I would be really happy if they would), although their change to the map making expedition really suggests to me that it is the same. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
If the user replies, it may not be the same user, because the main reason for the blocks in the first place is that this user has never replied to any user talk messages, while making problematic edits. I do think it's the same user, but it's a good practice not to be too hasty to block a user before it's completely obvious it really is the same user who's already blocked on another IP, evading a block. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Blocked 6 months for block evasion, uncredited copypasta from Wikipedia, and once again ignoring their user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


User:60.231.54.131Edit

Another Australian IP making similar edits. Leaving message to respond here. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This one is obvious, what with the blank "Culture" subtitles and such. I'm increasing the block length for this and all other previously used IPs to 1 year. But is a range block possible? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I suspect only if we block the Australian nation. The user might be hopping from one unsecured wireless network to another. If anyone can see a more clear pattern with which a range block may be applied then that would be great. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the justification for blocking these banned IP users from editing their own talk pages? So far, the edits concerned (while rather annoying and definitely puzzling) are not libellous, obscene or grossly ENDANGERING or misleading for travellers, so what is the potential harm in them editing their "own" talk page exactly?

I'm particularly concerned that:

1) Other editors from these Australian IP addresses that may potentially be caught up in collateral damage can't even tell us about this and

2) I thought any communication from this particular whack-a-mole would be a huge step forward, wouldn't it? --118.93.237.66 04:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was careful to avoid ever blocking their access to their user talk pages, because we want this user to communicate with us! If you can point to particular IPs whose access to their talk pages was (presumably inadvertently) blocked, I would be happy to change that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe Ikan has always kept the talk page open for editing. It would really help to have some communication with this user. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:124.186.112.57Edit

Blocked for 1 year with a message left at User talk:124.186.112.57. The pattern of fairly useless edits, with two already pretty much copied and pasted from Wikipedia, made this obvious to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In light of the comments above regarding communicating with the user, I believe we should take a different tack.
When blocked users try to edit a page, they see a huge message that says "Your user name or IP address has been blocked", along with the reason given for the block, and an invitation to discuss the matter with the admin who blocked them whose name, and a link to whose talk page, is helpfully provided.
We've blocked this vandal fifteen times now. Logically, you'd think that anyone who is editing in good faith would wonder what in the world is prompting the community to block him at every turn, and would reach out to an administrator for answers. This user has done no such thing. I think an integral part of accepting that this is a vandal rather than a misguided but good-faith editor is also accepting that he's not going to communicate with us.
I think, going forward, we need to deny recognition to this vandal by not leaving talk page messages for him, however terse and sternly worded, and simply revert, block, ignore from here on out. To quote Wikipedia: "The best way to dissuade [vandals] from vandalising is to convince them that vandalising is boring and has no impact on the community or the [project]" and "when they are simply reverted and blocked without so much as the bat of an eyelash and everything continues on as usual, they will go elsewhere."
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

User: 124.187.94.203Edit

Another IP of the Australian vandal, also banned for 1 year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:123.211.21.123Edit

Latest IP of the banned vandal, also blocked for 1 year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:58.164.131.111Edit

Ditto. This whack-a-mole business isn't working. What else can be done? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been said that a rangeblock wouldn't work, as "we'd have to block the entire Australian nation". However, I wonder if we couldn't narrow it down to something like a 3-month block on all IP-only edits from Australian mobile phone carriers? That's probably still a broader brush than we'd like to use in an ideal scenario – but given the modest level of activity on Wikivoyage in general, how many innocent users would such a block actually inconvenience? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I made that remark on the basis that the user appears to have access to an unlimited supply of ISPs in Australia, and when they get blocked then they just move on to another internet cafe / unsecure WiFi and start again.
I know that some editors here would welcome the wholesale banning of unregistered users, therefore I am concerned about whether blocking all Australian non-registered IP's would cause a precedent for this to eventually happen globally.
Technically however it wouldn't be that difficult to achieve what you are suggesting, and if it causes this user to find another hobby in the intervening three months then that would be awesome. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I checked again and I was wrong in my assertion above. The user is using different ip addresses from the 'Telstra Internet' provider:
This yields the ranges of:
  • 124.176.0.0 - 124.191.255.255
  • 60.224.0.0 - 60.231.255.255
  • 123.208.0.0 - 123.211.255.255
  • 58.160.0.0 - 58.175.255.255
May I suggest that instead of banning an IP each time, how about we try banning the entire range of each and every Telstra range instead? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Excellent idea. As an aside, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone on Wikivoyage advocate for a ban on all anonymous edits, and the WMF would never allow such a thing in any case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, in the interest of minimizing collateral damage, I think it's important that we make an exception for registered users. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, sounds like a good plan. (Complete Telstra IP range ban for anonymous IP edits for 3 months) Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Given what Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits says about range blocks, I think it'd be prudent to sound out other editors' opinions before implementing one. I say give it two or three days and barring any objections, let's do it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If we were trying to prevent wicked libels, obscenities or other major damage, then we might have to consider stopping users of the most popular network in Australia from editing without creating (and using) an account. However, at this stage, he's only a perplexing irritation isn't he? What if this guy starts registering accounts? Is there really no other way? Can any WMF techies offer any assistance?

Given the rapidity and breadth of article span of some of these edits, we also need to consider the nightmare scenario as to whether this is some sort of automated process - if you're really paranoid, wouldn't IBobi just love bleating about us no longer being a "Wiki that any traveller can edit" to the media... --118.93nzp (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if he/she would create an account. This would open a communication channel that has thus far completely eluded us. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It is your (completely valid) opinion that the user is not malicious, however over time the opinions of others here believe that they are engaged at best in inadvertent vandalism and we do need to contain this in some way. If the user refuses to engage then they are a problem, even if they are not writing swear words all over the place. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I think 118's concerns are quite exaggerated. First of all, as I said above, given how many people edit Wikivoyage at all, we could surely count on one hand the number of folks who'd be inconvenienced by such a block over the next three months. Secondly, when you get right down to it, no one is actually being "blocked". That tiny number of editors who want to use a Telstra mobile phone to edit Wikivoyage can do so simply by registering an account. It's easy and costs nothing.
Also, Andrewssi2, there is absolutely nothing "inadvertent" about this user's conduct (q.v. my comments here, timestamped 17:30, 22 December 2013). We need to call this issue what it is, unequivocally—vandalism, with all the bad faith that implies—because hiding our heads in the sand will, to say the least, not help us solve this problem.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Range blocks for 3 months is very serious - unless you have given up on us ever attracting orders of magnitude more readers and editors. Please provide 3 diffs of the behaviour that you call "unequivocally—vandalism". What makes you think that Telstra do not provide the proposed ranges to home and office users, rather than mobile users? --118.93nzp (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Temporarily inconveniencing those very few contributors who absolutely need to edit on a Telstra mobile phone and absolutely refuse to register an account is not going to affect the growth of our user base in any significant way, 118, so let's refrain from histrionics. It's unfortunate that one vandal's refusal to play by the rules spoiled it (on, it bears repeating, a quite temporary basis) for an uncertain but infinitesimal number of editors, but that's the price we have to pay if we want Wikivoyage to run smoothly.
Secondly, you know very well what any diffs that I might show you would look like. As I alluded to above, it's not the edits themselves that make this an unequivocal case of vandalism as much as the vandal's willful refusal to engage with the community, which makes it clear that his contributions are in bad faith. To quote myself:
"When blocked users try to edit a page, they see a huge message that says 'Your user name or IP address has been blocked', along with the reason given for the block, and an invitation to discuss the matter with the admin who blocked them whose name, and a link to whose talk page, is helpfully provided."
"We've blocked this vandal fifteen times now. Logically, you'd think that anyone who is editing in good faith would wonder what in the world is prompting the community to block him at every turn, and would reach out to an administrator for answers. This user has done no such thing."
It's true that we haven't heard the vandal's side of the story, but the possibility that the user is operating in good faith and is merely extraordinarily dimwitted is no longer big enough to merit serious consideration.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
To AndreCarrotflower:  I take your silence to mean that you can not provide 3 examples of 3 diffs of the behaviour that you call "unequivocally—vandalism".
You also haven't told us what makes you think that Telstra do not provide the proposed ranges to home and office users, rather than mobile phone users? (by way of example, many of the Vodafone IP's that I use here in New Zealand are actually fixed connections provided to NZ government agency offices - NOT mobile connections!). Why is it impossible that this guy has a very limited command of English? What's the maximum length of time he's used a particular IP for? What is his motivation? --118.93nzp (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a very limited understanding of the French language. I can read and communicate bits but could not hold a conversation. That wouldn't excuse me from copying pieces of irrelevant information from French WP to French WV and refusing to engage with the WV community. The correct course of action would be not to contribute to a wiki whose language I barely understand. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
To 118.93nzp:  In my above comment, I explained to you that I would not be providing any diffs, and I explained to you exactly why. I said that the evidence of vandalism was not to be found in any individual edit, but in the user's pattern of behavior – and I was very clear about it. I'm trying very hard to continue assuming good faith on your part, 118, but my better judgment tells me that you've returned to your old ways of trying to manipulate conversations by harping on irrelevant tangents. If that's not the case, I apologize, but if that is the case, I refuse to take the bait. And, in any event, the question of whether we rangeblock this user does not hinge solely on whether I can provide three diffs.
Secondly, it may very well be that Telstra provide services to homes and offices rather than just mobile phones. However, I reiterate my earlier comment that a certain amount of collateral damage is unfortunately sometimes necessary to ensure that Wikivoyage continues to function smoothly. Furthermore, I reiterate that the problem is easily solvable for anyone who may be inadvertently blocked by simply registering an account. And, finally, I also reiterate that the number of people that edit Wikivoyage in the first place indicates that the number of affected individuals will be quite small.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the vandal's personal motivation, this thread's real purpose is to determine an appropriate response to their edits. We have provided a range blocking strategy above that may be strong enough to finally discourage this user from making any more edits. If 118.93nzp or anyone else has an alternative strategy to propose then by all means do share. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad there may be a way to deal with this individual, because dealing with his/her edits is a big time-waster, and by the way, I'll be traveling and have only limited access to this site for most of the month of January. That said, if there's concern about collateral damage to good-faith editors, perhaps it would make sense to start with a shorter range block. Perhaps one month might be sufficient. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course this is a heavy tool but it's not being used lightly. This whole thing has been costing way too much precious time and indeed, at the present time, the benefits seem to outweigh the (valid) objections. I'm not sure why we'd have to start with 3 months right away though. It's the first range ban, let's start with a couple of weeks or so and indeed allow registered users to edit. It's easy enough to prolong if necessary. Can someone tell me what notice editors using those ranges would get? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we don't need any blocks at all. Doesn't abuse at telstra dot net (or maybe the form over here) exist also for situations like these? We do have records of all the IP addresses and times and dates when they were used - plenty of information - so the ISP should be able to take action against the particular vandal(s) i.e. violator(s) of their terms of use without any collateral damage. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Approaching Telstra would not be a bad idea. They might want to e-mail their user directly if some of the IP's are fixed lines rather than mobiles. Our communication to them needs to explain better and more clearly why we are concerned about these particular behaviours.
I'd strongly suggest that we don't use descriptors of behaviour that we can't forensically substantiate. (Vandalism is the behaviour attributed originally to the Vandals {a Germanic tribe}, by the Romans, in respect of culture: ruthless destruction or spoiling of anything beautiful or venerable. The term also includes criminal damage such as graffiti and defacement without permission of the owner) We can't be like Alice in Wonderland and use words in such a sloppy and specialised way that they are unintelligible to the audience we're trying to reach. Despite all the bluster and the attempted re-definition of words, the basic concern here is with copyright infringement by unattributed copypasta - Telstra is not going to be impressed by hyperbolic references to "vandalism". They'll struggle to see how someone adding tantalising titbits of information about ethnic makeup, single word descriptors of sights, empty non-standard sub-section titles and ignoring completely attempts at communication can be described as a "vandal".
One School of thought would hold that the "stretched" blocking of Tony was "good" because any sort of publicity is better than none, but I'd rather we don't continue to make fools of ourselves by getting painted into a corner. I think we have deviated too far from our founding culture that User bans are a last resort. "They are embarrassing, because they are an admission that our community is not strong, patient, and professional enough to deal with unwanted edits using the simple freedom built into the Wiki way..." "The lifeblood of any Wiki Web site is the ability of any reader to add, edit, and delete information on the Web site. For Wikivoyage in particular, we absolutely depend on a large pool of casual readers to share their knowledge about places around the world" so I do see the proposed remedy as more dangerous than the malady we are allegedly trying to fix. --118.93nzp (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Without prejudice to the action taken against Tony1, the idea that userbans are a last resort and something we should spend countless useless volunteer hours avoiding is an untenable policy. It works when a site is very small and a negligible target for spammers and trolls. That's not what Wikivoyage is now. I'm not suggesting we should be ban-happy, but when dealing with someone who absolutely refuses to communicate and makes edits that are not merely annoying but contain copyright violation, a ban is absolutely the appropriate action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a great deal of respect for that stance, Ikan Kekek - especially as you are one of our most tireless and eagle-eyed patrollers. The difficulty I have here is one of proportionality - I genuinely worry not only that this is a dreadful precedent to set, but that it risks more damage to our reputation than the unwanted edits that we are trying to stop. May we try the "ask Telstra nicely" route first, please? --118.93nzp (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem whatsoever with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the 'ask Telstra' strategy is a distraction because I don't see anyone here who is going to action it. Can we proceed with a 'two week ban' in the first instance and during that time anyone can talk to Telstra if they feel that will be useful? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right, Andrew. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, someone asked about alternative measures and I came up with one. If it's such a bad idea, let's not do it. Penning Telstra a nice letter doesn't of course hinder us from blocking or vice versa. Here is a text suggestion right from the Swedish WTravel where at one point - around 2007-2008- all sorts of crap outnumbered real edits by far. User:Riggwelter would likely know/remember how often he had to resort to contacting the ISP and whether it was successful or not. It is also entirely possible that Telstra would ignore such a request. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks ϒpsilon. If anyone wants to use this template to contact Telstra then please do so and let us know the outcome.
In the meantime, do we have consensus for an initial Telstra range block for anonymous users for two weeks? Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this still a current problem?
I often have a look at the "recent changes" list, and I haven't noticed any of these problematic "Australian" edits in the last week...
It would be good if someone like @Wrh2: who has both a high profile public persona and a nice turn of phrase, were to write to Telstra. Who knows, we might be surprised by their positive response and then we would have a point of contact for any future problems of this nature (together with a useful precedent for letters to other ISP's)... --118.93nzp (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

ConsensusEdit

According to my reading of the discussion so far, we have a broad agreement that:

  1. we should immediately institute a two-week rangeblock for all Telstra IPs, excepting registered users,
  2. we should then contact Telstra and inform them of the situation so that they can take action, and
  3. if Telstra fails to get back to us or refuses to take action, we should immediately extend the range block to one month from the start of the original block (I still think three months would be better, but I'm willing to compromise if no one else supports that).

Absent any eleventh-hour objections which draw significant support from among the community, I'm going to call this a consensus and institute the rangeblock in two days. If anyone else has any thoughts, let's please hear them now.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to join in late, but if we're talking about the ranges in this comment, isn't that potentially millions of IPs? And we're suggesting blocking these for a 2-4 weeks for a user that makes a handful of edits on occasion and is usually blocked almost immediately after doing so? That seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant to me. Can't we just continue to block the user for three months as they show up? -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
To Wrh2: I would direct you to my comments timestamped 08:11 and 08:40, December 30. Salient excerpts:
[notwithstanding how many millions of potential editors would be affected], "given how many people edit Wikivoyage at all, we could surely count on one hand the number of folks who'd be inconvenienced by such a block over the next three months."
"when you get right down to it, no one is actually being 'blocked'. That tiny number of editors who want to use a Telstra mobile phone to edit Wikivoyage can do so simply by registering an account. It's easy and costs nothing."
"It's unfortunate that one vandal's refusal to play by the rules spoiled it (on, it bears repeating, a quite temporary basis) for an uncertain but infinitesimal number of editors, but that's the price we have to pay if we want Wikivoyage to run smoothly."
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
My preference would just be to continue applying an immediate block to any IP that makes a questionable edit if it comes from the affected range, as we've been doing - range blocks are meant to be used exceedingly sparingly, and blocking such a broad range should only be done for behavior that puts the site in jeopardy (IMHO). In this case we're dealing with a relatively low-volume editor who is pretty easy to block as he appears. That said, if I'm the only admin who objects, since I haven't been dealing with this particular user then please consider consensus to have been reached despite my concerns; however, if any other admins have concerns then I think we should simply continue applying IP-specific blocks. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Ryan on this one. Blocking several large ranges seems excessive. A /16 is 64K addresses and the suggested blocks cover 35 /16s, so nearly 2.3 million addresses. Contacting Telstra seems a fine idea, though. Pashley (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
How about the following: Special:Contributions/121.222.132.50 (not in the suggested range, BTW) just showed up and looked like our problem user. I went to http://whois.net/, saw that this was a Telstra IP, and immediately blocked the user for three months. Quick and easy. If we agree that any Telstra IP that appears to be this same user can be immediately blocked, does that address all concerns? -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the previous procedure, which consensus increasingly sees as ineffective, was to use escalating blocks. The other IPs are being blocked for a full year, but frankly I'd be uncomfortable issuing a block longer than that on an anonymous IP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this, without a steward checking the range for collateral damage *at a minimum*. The reason en.wikipedia gets away with blocking ranges like this is because they have local CUs and an account creation process (w:en:WP:ACC). --Rschen7754 02:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In my estimation, the fact that these ranges encompass so many IPs is precisely why we SHOULD rangeblock the user. The vandal has millions of addresses at his disposal, and failing a rangeblock, he can continue his vandalism on an effectively indefinite basis. Furthermore, we've been dealing with this vandal for far too long to simply assume that he'll eventually get bored and move on, and dealing with him through the "whack-a-mole" method has proven too ineffective, frustrating, and time-consuming. If this were Wikipedia, this would clearly be a case for w:WP:LONG.

On the other hand, as I've said myriad times before, Wikivoyage simply doesn't have enough editors that such a tiny sliver of the pie as "users who edit exclusively through the Telstra mobile network and are too stubborn to register an account" merits worrying about. Not to put too fine a point on it, but "millions of potential users might be blocked" is a smoke-and-mirrors argument, IMO. Far more pertinent is the number of actual users who fit into that category who will try to edit the site over the next two weeks, and if there even are any other than our vandal friend, I would be astonished.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

By that argument, we should block all anonymous editing. Which the WMF won't approve of. --Rschen7754 05:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a gross oversimplification. We get plenty of valuable edits from anonymous users, but here we have a pattern of anonymous vandalism that is coming from a range of IP addresses that is, to some degree, predictable. We are not powerless to draw distinctions between valuable anonymous contributors and IP vandals, and a two-week block is far different from an indefban—two weeks is far shorter than I'd like these blocks to last, to be quite honest. The rangeblock solution is not a perfect one, but I've yet to hear any workable alternate proposals (including Ypsilon's, which is probably a good idea in conjunction with a rangeblock, but is far less than sufficient on its own). I've heard noise made about continuing the whack-a-mole process, but with all due respect, anyone who hasn't been in the trenches with Ikan, Andrewssi2 and myself cleaning up after this vandal for months on end frankly has no room to talk about how we need to be more patient. Maybe he's not spewing swear words and libelous statements everywhere, but copyright violations are no small matter either. Not to mention the user's troubling interference with the Mapmaking Expedition, which seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle in this discussion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I would ask everyone to read the whole thread relating to this problematic user. It seems objections are based on the idea of "We don't like range blocks" without any consideration why we are suggesting this course of action. It has been long established that this user is disruptive and the discussion should be how we deal with them. Nobody likes range blocks however it is a legitimate tool at our disposal. Previous distinct blocks of this user have been ineffective because they change their IP every single time, therefore range blocks are the next best course of action.
Currently this user is persistent enough that they are happy to wait a day until their IP recycles. (They might not even realize this is the reason they can actually edit). If they can't edit WV for a month then they may just give up, and we can dispense with the range blocks completely. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not just "we don't like them", we are providing arguments that this will impact innocent users on that range as well. Such a rangeblock would greatly risk having stewards or the WMF intervene, because of the possibility for high collateral. I don't think you realize how big of an impact this could have. --Rschen7754 08:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and contacting the ISP has generally been proven to be useless on en.wikipedia, unless the ISP is a university or corporate entity like Apple (which is not the case here). Even so, it doesn't have a chance without CU info, which stewards won't just give out to other users. --Rschen7754 09:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Finally, please read m:Founding principles: 2. The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration. And quite frankly, "but with all due respect, anyone who hasn't been in the trenches with Ikan, Andrewssi2 and myself cleaning up after this vandal for months on end frankly has no room to talk about how we need to be more patient." is downright rude - I've cleaned up after many an IP-hopping vandal in my days. --Rschen7754 09:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you found my comment rude, Rschen, but one thing I find absolutely maddening is the long list of comments above this one wherein people gleefully list everything that's wrong with my and Andrewssi2's proposal—and Ypsilon's too, for that matter—and yet offer precisely no solutions of their own. It smacks of obstructionism, which is precisely what the constantly gridlocked, catatonic government of this site does not need.
I repeat what I said at the beginning of this subsection: if anyone has any alternate proposals, I'm all ears. But I, for one, am not willing to simply do nothing about this problem. Nor is continuing to be made fools of with the whack-a-mole game, which unequivocally is not working, a viable solution.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
AbuseFilter maybe? --Rschen7754 16:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower - I proposed an alternate above - any IP identified by http://www.whois.net as a Telstra IP that an admin suspects of matching this user's behavior can be immediately blocked without need for a further ban nomination. Range blocking millions of IPs is a really big deal, and I'm opposed to it in this case. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That is a mitigation that we are using now, not a solution. We have tried the 'whack-a-mole' approach and the user is persistent in their behavior. We are asking for a limited period of range blocking now, rather than spending a good percentage of our editing time on this user for the foreseeable future. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Somehow other WMF wikis, large and small, can get by without doing this; I'm sure that we can, too. --Rschen7754 06:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
As I see it, contacting Telstra is by no means certain to work. An old saying among systems admins is that they should police abuse of the net, such as spamming, not abuse on the net such as libel, copyright violations etc., and I think wiki vandalism falls in the latter category. However, contacting them can do no harm so it seems worth trying.
Should I go ahead & email them, or should I leave it for others? One of the admins who has been dealing with this problem could probably give more detail than I & a message from WMF staff might carry more weight than one from a random user. Who should do this? Pashley (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
w:Wikipedia:Abuse response may be of some help, for ideas; however, the reason the project went inactive was because ISPs really didn't give a crap about what their users were doing. --Rschen7754 18:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
w:Wikipedia:Abuse response/Volunteers lists one person as "active" and able to deal with Aussie ISPs. I left a message on his or her talk page Pashley (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I Moved this conversation to new section below Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Abuse Filter for Anonymous Australian Telstra IPEdit

Just saying, has a less-drastic option, specifically the abuse filter, been considered?--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, just to get the ball rolling on Special:AbuseFilter, is it possible to create a rule that prevents unregistered users creating more than one red link in a single edit? Would such a rule be against the spirit of the community? Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The filter can't check for red links, but there may be valid reasons to keep red links. But if what's being combated here is copy/pasting from Wikipedia, that's feasible because Wikipedia uses a lot of templates unique to Wikipedia only.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, red links were only one issue (and seriously there isn't a reason why 10 red links should be created at the same time in an edit). I don't think looking for WP templates is going to be be helpful either, mainly because the user is copying and pasting very short pieces of text with no templated infomation.
I would urge you to look down this thread and determine if there is anything the user has done that can be practically blocked by pattern. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I do need to review it in more detail, but the filter is capable of filtering by IP range as well, so in effect it would check both the range and the pattern.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
For example, we could set up a filter to look for Telstra-range IP edits without edit summaries? Admins could then check the filter for easy reference to new IPs used by this user, or we could even establish a throttle or even an outright block on such edits? Powers (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
That would be a good start, though technically it's "disallowing" edits since it is possible to block IPs and accounts with the AbuseFilter (though I would not recommend it for this site at this time). --Rschen7754 17:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it has merit and is worth trying. Of course the user could just type 'x' into the edit summary, however it is worth a go and lets see? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Of note is that the filter can also check the diff size and whether the page was blank (nonexistent) beforehand.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about diff size. It doesn't seem they create blank pages but rather add irrelevant content to skeleton template pages that already exist. (Skeleton pages are another issue I'd like to tackle eventually, but don't want to go on a tangent right now) Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
By diff size, we mean the change in the amount of text in the article. --Rschen7754 07:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The size of this user's edits tend to be less than 100 bytes. If we can prevent those, then the amount of cleanup work we are doing will reduce significantly. ( Example: Special:Contributions/124.177.165.57 ) Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe we could have it look at random bullets or lists being added, to be more specific. --Rschen7754 18:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently in Germany, with limited internet time and access, accounting for my lack of participation in these threads lately. I'd just like to commend those of you who are taking this problem seriously. It has wasted lots of person-hours to deal with this annoying IP editor, so any effective means to progress beyond "whack-a-mole" that can be agreed on would be most welcome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
If we can block edits from those IP ranges, that are adding bullet points of less than 100 bytes, then it would catch most of these problems. Can such a rule be created? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, it wouldn't catch the few diffs that don't use bullets, from my cursory look through what you linked. --Rschen7754 05:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going for low hanging fruit here, not a 100% solution. It would have stopped 3/4 of todays' edits : Special:Contributions/60.231.69.15 Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for being MIA in this discussion lately. I'm fully in support of what I've read so far about using AbuseFilter. As far as the specific parameters of which edits should be blocked, I would agree with "less than 100 bytes" and "no edit summary", but I'm less sure about "bullet points". In my experience, it's true that many of the vandal's edits incorporate bullet points, but 75% is a stretch (notwithstanding what happens on any one particular day). My concern is that if we allow too high a proportion of the user's edits to go through, he may figure out what triggers the filter and tailor his edits accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd actually agree with AndreCarrotflower. If we just apply the rules of "Telstra IP ranges", "Anonymous Login", "less than 100 bytes" and "no edit summary" then that will effectively block the user and still allow other valid anonymous edits from Telstra. What needs to happen next to create this rule? Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
A lot of those edits do have an edit summary, even if it is just the default one. --Rschen7754 17:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Does the auto-gen summary count as far as the edit filter goes? Even if it does, we can look for text outside of the /* */ delimiters. Powers (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does, if I remember correctly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, our user is back, so can we now try out the edit filter idea? Do we have agreement on the rules above, and do we have an admin with both appropriate privileges and filter rule knowledge to execute on it? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Also today's edits seem to be around deleting towns for some reason. Can we also have the rule check for deletions as well? Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/17 is a start (sorry, only available to admins). It does not have the "less than 100 bytes" or "no edit summary" parts yet. --Rschen7754 08:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rs. I can see it exists here: Special:AbuseFilter. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User:60.231.69.15Edit

The anonymous banned Australian Telstra user is back. Please ban before they change too much. Andrewssi2 (