Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive 2005-2012

< Wikivoyage:User ban nominations
 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archives for Wikivoyage:User ban nominations

2005–12, 2013–14, 2015–16, 2017–18, 2019–22, 2023–26

  • User:62.189.34.9 - Apparently a bot that is corrupting non-ASCII characters in articles that it edits. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:47, 28 August 2006 (EDT)
  • User:195.54.84.14 - Apparently a bot that is corrupting non-ASCII characters in articles that it edits. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:47, 28 August 2006 (EDT)
  • User:(WT-en) Fuk Mi. Vandal with no cleverness or clue and proud of it. A user page is not a place for hate speech against other users. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:28, 4 Mar 2005 (EST)
    • I wouldn't call it hate speech, just stupid speech. -- (WT-en) Mark 01:47, 5 Mar 2005 (EST)
      • Well, more just childish. I think pretty much every mentally sufficient adult has cleverer ways of being insulting. But I strongly object to the users use of bigoted epithets even taking his lack of vocabulary into account. -- (WT-en) Colin
    • Do not block. Yes, the vandalism has been childish -- all the reason more that we shouldn't let ourselves be pulled down to the level of a personal squabble. I would be extremely disappointed if, after almost two years in operations, one person, doing manual edits, was able to goad us into harsh hard security measure. I strongly suggest that we maintain our professionalism and maturity. We all know how to handle unwanted edits -- revert them. --(WT-en) Evan 13:52, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)


Wikivoyage's first IP block

swept in from pub

OK, I've just made history and made 205.200.236.19 on Wikivoyage's first-ever IP block. This dimwit has now pulled its stunt of blanking every page it can get its hands on three times, and it's getting late in my part of the world and I don't have access to Mark's nifty autorevert script. Oh, how I'd love to see its face right now... (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:07, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)

I've reverted the block. If this user needs to be blocked, let's discuss on Project:User ban nominations, per user ban policy. Personally, I think that this user's behavior was not sufficient cause for having our first-ever block. --(WT-en) Evan 14:03, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)

Anonymous Users Blocked for Repeated Spamming

I have blocked the following anonymous users for 24 hours for repeated spamming attacks. There have been 2 attacks in 6 hours. While I understand we should not ban users, I feel that these attacks are some form of automated attack because the attacks all happen quickly (over 2-3 minutes) and 2 different URL's (so far) have been spammed in about 6 hours. This blocking is only for 24 hours to see if it has any effect and to allow some time to discuss if a more permanent ban is needed. The URL's being spammed were not previously on the spam blacklist but are now. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:09, 6 Jan 2006 (EST) - 08:58, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

The following IP users were apparently part of attack but not blocked as only spammed using one URL. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:50, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

The following logged on users have been warned for spamming some of exactly the same content. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:09, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

The last time this sort of thing happened it was actually a spam email doing the spamming. I don't think blocking users can be of much help in that case. -- (WT-en) Mark 12:14, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
That is why I didn't block the users. I have assumed it is an automated process of some sort - such as a computer virus that is giving a hacker backdoor access to lots of IP addresses. But on the off chance that it is a human attack the warning is there. How effective banning these users will be I do not know. My only hope is that it might slow down the attack so that administrators can keep up. -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:16, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
This attack occurred over a short period of time. Coordination of this sort implies there was a "master control" in charge of the attack.
This attack quickly adapted to Huttite's spam-filter attempt. This implies that there was a human in control who was able to adapt.
This attack involved making minor changes (generally & into &amp;) in order to evade notice by people reviewing diffs. This implies both the realization by the operator that the changes are not desired by the community, and preplanning of malice.
The volume of minor changes in a short time implies that a script was being used for the attack.
Some of the IP Addresses were the same as used in the previous attack a month or two ago. This implies the attack uses proxies/open relays/virus-compromized hosts to implement their attack. It also implies an attempt at evasion from observation.
I believe bans are justified both as an emergency measure against the use of a script to automate rapid vandalism, and by violating the Script policy by using an unapproved script. I vote for this ban as a temporary emergency measure.
-- (WT-en) Colin 16:52, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  • Special:Contributions/203.163.231.250 I blocked it for an hour because it was a obvious bot spamming pages at a way higher speed than I could revert. It also looks like I was the only admin active at that time and I was distracted enough not to do a proper revert of the damage that it had done. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:51, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

I blocked this spambot script for a period of one day because it had spammed at least 130 pages in under 15 minutes and I was simply unable to keep up. (WT-en) Ryan also blocked this IP a few days ago for the same reason and I based my actions upon his assurances that he thinks it's a spambot script. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 08:33, 1 November 2006 (EST)

  • I'd like to voice my support for a ban-on-sight-for-some-days rule for this bot whenever it shows up. It has come again today and has been banned on Shared. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 19:34, 4 November 2006 (EST)
    I'd support that provided the ban is never for longer than one week - it's an IP-based bot, so it's conceivable that at some point in the future a valid user could log in with that address. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:37, 4 November 2006 (EST)
    Update: Since a block can be applied that still allows user account creation I don't see any problem with long bans. -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:42, 21 February 2007 (EST)
  • Also, I'd like it that anyone and everyone who blocks this IP note it here as required by policy so that we have a checks and balance system. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 20:17, 4 November 2006 (EST)
  • Since Shared doesn't have a user ban nominations page I want to note that I've banned the spam script with this IP for two days on Shared. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 14:55, 8 November 2006 (EST)
  • I've blocked this IP for one week for anonymous users. We've had no valid contributions, and a large amount of random-numbers spam. (Does anyone know how those work? What are the numbers for?) If this happens again, I'd like to block it permanently. --(WT-en) Evan 13:36, 22 November 2006 (EST)
    • Concur. If the IP ever gets accessed by a real contributor, we can reconsider (and plenty of admins list e-contact information so that that contributor can let us know what's coming). The one-week blockages aren't achieving the necessary goal, alas. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:41, 22 November 2006 (EST)
  • I don't know if I support an indefinate block of the IP. In case we have to resort to that I've added a note to the IP's talk page explaining how, should the IP change hands, a real contributor can have the block rescinded. Lastly, the IP was also blocked on Shared for a period of one week by (WT-en) Ricardo. I'm going to try to import this page to Shared. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 17:09, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Random Numbers Spam

I dunno what they're for, but it's either pure vandalism or some kind of crypto thing. I suppose it might be something to do with the numbers stations or something like that. -- (WT-en) Mark 15:02, 26 November 2006 (EST)

That's what's above. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 15:19, 26 November 2006 (EST)
I meant this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station. I was speculating on what the numbers might mean, just for fun. -- (WT-en) Mark 15:39, 26 November 2006 (EST)
Hmmm. I always knew Wikivoyage would play it's part in world domination, but I thought Wikivoyagers were going to be the revolution, not that we'd turn out to be the medium for someone else's spying activites. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 15:51, 26 November 2006 (EST)
My guess is that it's a test. If the bot puts some random number into the page, then comes back in a week and the number is still there, then it can safely conclude that nobody's keeping a very good eye on that page (or the wiki as a whole). --(WT-en) Evan 15:57, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Another random number generator. I've blocked it for a week (for anon users only). --(WT-en) Evan 16:59, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Support the ban, for sure, but it seems to be working on Wikivoyage Shared too. I can't admin there; can one of you folks fix it? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:51, 26 November 2006 (EST)
I banned the IP for two weeks on Shared. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:06, 26 November 2006 (EST)
It (or a similarly behaved bot) is now using different IPs to create and edit pt:Project:Wiki. Since the IPs change completely from one edit to the other (I've traced them to ISPs in Russia, the US and France so far) blocking or banning doesn't seem to work anymore, so I've blanked the page and protected it against anonymous edits. I'm not quite sure that was the best choice but I think it could spare us at least a few deletions for a while. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 20:00, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Let's block this IP (I vote permanently) for creating vandal accounts and vandalizing the main page on multiple occassions and moving pages. The IP owner has also started running automated scripts against WT, or so I suspect. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 19:05, 23 February 2007 (EST)

I'm a reformed vandal, but you refuse to remove some information from the sandbox, so I'm running scripts to punish you.(WT-en) Lezron 19:07, 23 February 2007 (EST)
That'd be a dialup. Feel free to send a complaint to level3.net -- (WT-en) Colin 19:09, 23 February 2007 (EST)
Nah. Either we ban vandals or we don't - until now the unwritten policy has been that we don't, and I don't see a compelling reason to change it. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:47, 23 February 2007 (EST)

IP 202.47.109.103 should be banned immediately before all content on Wikivoyage is removed. I would also strongly recommend an abuse report to his/her provider. -- (WT-en) Túrelio 03:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I've blocked this as a violation of the bot policy even though some edits were clearly hand-made. I felt it was a bot based on (1) very high rate editing bursts and (2) the ip's excessive ability to notice and restore corrections to its vandalisms and (3) its failure to emit any commentary about its own edits (it neither taunted, whined, not threatened). So while it could be a human, the profile doesn't really match very well. -- (WT-en) Colin 04:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Also... does anyone have an opinion about the length of the block? I don't. -- (WT-en) Colin 04:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The timeframe you set looks reasonable. Don't worry Turelio, it's pretty easy to stay on top of the vandals without blocking, an admin can revert probably around 50 edits/minute or more depending on their connection speed. p.s. Colin, I'd just finished making the hot cocoa, guess I'll have to drink both! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 04:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
But why should an admin or anyone else loose his/her time by reverting something that could be avoided by blocking an IP number. This was not simple vandalism. There's no human right to destroy contents of Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Túrelio 04:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
See -- (WT-en) Colin 14:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I know I'm in the minority, but I really think the way to beat a troll is to bore them to death. Immediately reverting their changes or banning them simply makes this a game for someone who is trolling. Waiting for an hour (or whatever) to revert and selectively protecting important pages like the Main Page may not dissuade all trolls, but I suspect it will work with most. Much like pesticide usually breeds more resistant insects, I'm afraid that using increasingly harsh methods such as bans will simply challenge the trolls to be more creative and likely more damaging. -- (WT-en) Ryan (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
In this case, the user seems to be throwing a hissy-fit over how his touting of his lodge was reverted. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
This stuff always happens at weird times when others are going to work, school, the airport, home, or whatever. I was going to block him, but didn't because it may have been considered "abuse" (as policy states) since I didn't propose the ban, wait the three days out, and possibly other factors. I was also hoping that someone might be able to give me more creative insight too. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 13:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I blocked this user for a month for violating the script policy. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Since I'm normally the one who speaks out against user bans, I just wanted to add my support here. Whether the user was using a script or simply opened a bunch of tabs in Firefox, anything that is difficult for a normal user to clean up after in a reasonable amount of time is something that is OK to put a stop to. -- (WT-en) Ryan (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Independant of his actual behaviour, this user should be banned for his racist user name (or choose an acceptable user name). -- (WT-en) Túrelio 08:22, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Although I certainly find this name distasteful, I would rather we didn't get into the business of determining what an acceptable user name is. Bans should only be based on what the user does (and this one has been inactive since his less-than-15-minutes of infamy). - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:34, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

I blocked this user because the vandlization rate was too high to keep up with. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

121.247.0.0/16 and 121.246.0.0/16

A spammer/vandal keeps using IP addresses in this range. It appears that they're adding their phone number to listings in pages in India, in an attempt to redirect business. (WT-en) Jordanmills 09:33, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I blocked this IP for a period of 12 hours starting at 18:58 on April 22, 2007 for violating the script policy. The bot seems to remove plus signs and all content after the first ampersand in an article. Such repetitious edits seem likely only by a bot/script. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:59, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I've blocked the same bot from the following additional IP addresses:

I blocked this IP due to repeated (3 times) spammings of the U.S. guide. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 04:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT) Oh, and the block will be up in two weeks. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 04:22, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Spambot. ~ 203.144.143.4 08:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I count 4 edits, so I doubt a ban would be necessary. These edits have been coming from a range of ips, so it wouldn't be effective anyway. I like your spam blacklist proposal better, although I don't really know how to make that edit myself. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 08:57, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Simply insert deleted below "lancelips\.com" and above "letomol\.com" (or unprotect the blacklist for 5 minutes and I'll do it). ~ 203.144.143.4 09:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Done. Thanks. ~ 58.8.1.11 09:56, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Spambot. Not readily blacklistable. ~ 203.144.143.4 09:16, 19 December 2007 (EST)

One edit every once in a while on the Talk:Main Page is very easy to deal with without resorting to hard measures—I tend to think we should reserve bans for temporary use against rapid, high-volume spambots. But I'm open to other opinions on this one, as these ips have been used over a long period of time for just one purpose. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Seems to me that if 195.229.242.57 & 200.226.134.53 should be blocked, then so should these. ~ 203.144.143.4 10:58, 19 December 2007 (EST)


Due to abuse by User:(WT-en) Tay on Project:Local spam blacklist and potential for confusion, I've banned my evil doppelganger (WT-en) User:Jpatoka-Capital-I indefinitely. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:15, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Just to throw in my two cents, but I do not object to this ban, especially considering the user's past history of vandalism and his attempt to cause havoc by impersonating (WT-en) "Jpatoka-Lowercase-L". -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 01:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
I support the ban based on the impersonation, but not on his past vandalism... he's not too hard to keep up with :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:51, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Related.... I just blocked User:(WT-en) Tay for one day since I see no productive contributions just trollishness combined with a willingness to revert war. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
I also support the indefinite ban of user:Jpatoka-capital-I. I don't object to a temporary ban for User:Tay, but in general I don't think bans are necessary in his type of case. Undoing anything that he does here could not be much easier, and there's nothing stopping him from simply using a new name. And just generally I hate to deprive such a sad, lonely person an outlet for self-affirmation ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:47, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Don't support. We don't have any consensus to handle unwanted edits with blocks... they should be nominated first, unless the volume of vandalism is way to high to keep up with. We've handled previous trolls (and far more destructive ones at that) with simple reverts, I really don't think this is an extraordinary case. Even looking back at Tay's history on Feb 6 there was a much larger amount of abuse which we handled the same way we've always handled these. What happened to the good old soft security measures? They've worked pretty well so far. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:04, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Related to edit of Project:Local spam blacklist, User:Autobot(contribs) is currently blocked for one month. I support this blocking, but I'd like to propose an indefinite ban because this username may be confused with a bot passed script nominations process. I think it is equivalent to pretend a trusted user. -- (WT-en) Tatata 23:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

I would support an indefinite ban of this user, as the name was confusing enough to make me look through the approved scripts list. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:47, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Support indefinite ban, based on impersonating a bot. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:04, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Just a note, however, this user is not a bot impersonating account. It was an account used by Tay/JpatokaI/Joesph Stalin/ etc... to run an automated script to vandalize the front page in an attempt to "punish" me for publishing his IP address, which has since changed. So this account was actually a bot, albeit not a kosher one. I support an indefinite block based on the past abuse/violation of the script policy. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 01:54, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Good point... but the deceitful username meant to go unnoticed is the reason I would vote for an indefite ban, script policy I would say should be far less... maybe a week to a month. We should hash this out on the talk page I think so we have some sort of standard to follow in the hopefully rare future cases that we need to block something ;) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:07, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Before we forget, have we mustered enough support to go forward with the indefinite ban of Autobot? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:04, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Looks like all in favor so far... I'd say let's do it, and if someone dissents then we'll revisit it then? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:10, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
OK, I blocked this account indefinitely. I think this is an appropriate response generally to accounts employing deceitful usernames like User:JpatokaI for example. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:28, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Thank you. -- (WT-en) Tatata 20:56, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Apparent spambots, probably running on an open proxy but not clear. Ryan had blocked the first one for a month some time ago; I have just renewed the block, again for a month. Jani had the second one blocked for a day, I've just re-upped it for a week. Since the things don't seem to be used by an actual human, I propose to make these bans permanent. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:38, 1 December 2007 (EST)

The Special:Contributions/195.229.242.57 block needs renewing ASAP. ~ 203.144.143.4 12:56, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Now re-upped for three months. This is an amazingly persistent spambot. I'd still like to get a bit more endorsement before making the block "permanent," however. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:20, 20 December 2007 (EST)
I support the block. In fact, our script policy recommends the automatic blocking of unapproved scripts. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 14:25, 20 December 2007 (EST)

IPs

I blocked several IPs because they were part of a spambot. I didn't block every IP and I left the option for an IP, should a real person obtain it, to sign up for an account. Here's the list of IPs I blocked. The blocks should be up in either one day or two days. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:45, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

200.169.121.244

Blocked for violating the script policy. The block will be up in three days. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 14:24, 20 December 2007 (EST)

For what it's worth, this (200.169.121.244) is the same spambot as 195.229.242.57 (see above) ~ 203.144.143.6 14:48, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I blocked the account for this user for three days for uploading pornographic images. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 02:10, 2 January 2008 (EST)

This account was banned for 3 months without being nominated here, and it's not a spambot—I think that's outside the bounds of our policy. I'm inclined to oppose this block, and while my objection stands, I'm unblocking the account.

Based on the discussion at User talk:(WT-en) Trekinfo, I think there was some ambiguity whether people were voicing support for a block of this account, or a simple blacklist of it's touted company (I've now done this). I'm inclined towards the latter because 1) the account's edits are hardly high-volume enough to cause difficulty in cleaning them up and 2) the blacklist should suffice while also having a nice side benefit of damaging said tout's site rank on major search engines. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:54, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

This is an unusual case, and I'm not proposing a ban yet, I'm just sounding out community opinion.

So: User:MarinaK appears to be taking Wikivoyage articles, editing them from grammar and style, and reformatting them to print as PDFs, which is fine, that's what we do at Wikivoyage Press also. However, she also often removes large chunks of "stubby" content and, worse yet, strips out valid primary-site extlinks. Repeated appeals on her talk page over a period of several weeks have resulted in a few "Sorry"-type responses, but she's still doing it. What to do? (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:17, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

And again. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:30, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
This is a tough one. The good edits are really good, but the deletions are really destructive. I suggest we take it on an article by article basis for a couple of weeks and simply do a complete rollback on any article that has destructive deletions; we will unfortunately also loose the good edits on those articles, but it's simpler than trying to manually put them together again. If the deletions still continue next month we can implement a ban --(WT-en) Nick 02:12, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Nick, I second your approach. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:41, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi all. Firstly, I am really quite disheartened that my efforts to make a positive contribution to Wikivoyage have been overshadowed through my lack of experience and knowledge about the wikivoyage community. A thorough explaination of my actions is detailed below:

Issues such as the deletion of external primary links at the bottom of articles were made through lack of knowledge. As I said, I was deleting these as they were appearing in the pdfs, but after it was explained that these links were needed, I stopped deleting them.

Deleting stubby content. Again, this was made due to lack of experience. I was deleting empty stubby listings as I thought it made the article look unfinished and unprofessional. Having been told that not to delete these as it is supposed to encourage newbies like myself to beef them up, I stopped deleting them.

Deleting listings that do not have reviews. A concern of mine is that many listings (esp restaurant and hotel listings) just have the name and address and no review. Whenever I see these, I do my research and try to find some information that I can rewrite into a review. However, when I do not find any info on places that are listed, it is a worry to me, as this indicates that the place may be out of business, or it is spam, etc. When I do not find any information that I can rewrite into a review, I do delete the listing. My preference is on quality information and reviews rather than quantity, but if this does not bode well with the wikivoyage community, then I relent and will leave empty listings.

Deleting Thai Romanisation in Bangkok. While editing Bangkok, I noticed that many Thai words had (????) after them. After researching and finding the Thai characters were correct, I deleted the (????) as I confirmed the words were correct and (??) only makes the article look unprofessional.

Please be aware that my intent is to make a valued contribution to Wikivoyage. I believe that my years of editing experience in the travel publishing industry, as well as my travel experience, make me an ideal candidate to make Wikivoyage articles even more stronger. As you can see, I am devoting a lot of my time into editing Wikivoyage articles and do assert that I can make a significant contribution to the community. Again, I just want to reiterate that if I am doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to let me know as it is purely from lack of knowledge. My replies have always been prompt and agreeable, as I am really enjoying the work that I have been contributing to, and would like for this to continue. --MarinaK 15:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.

MarinaK,
First, if we were really unhappy with your edits, we'd just undo them. We see that there are really good edits in there, and we want to help you so that the bad parts of your edits do not detract from all that is wonderful about them.
One of the frustrations that seems to be happening is a feeling that advice to you is unheeded. Regarding Deleting stubby content, you have been asked to leave it alone. If that makes no sense to you, please talk to us about why we want that rather than continuing with what you think best. Here's the idea: we want people to be able to add stuff to our guides without having to be hyper-professional about it. If they just want to add a City with no info about it, that's fine -- the existence of the empty article encourages others to add to it. If someone comes along and adds a few stubby listings, that's fine -- it encourages others to fill out more information about it. Perhaps when an article is really at a high level one could trim some of it out, but don't do that by default.
The ???? you are seeing in listings for foreign languages is the fault of your web browser. There are no ???? on mine. Tell us about which browser you are using, and maybe we can help you with advice on how to improve your browsing experience. In the future, we expect that the font and language situation will continue to improve.
Thanks again -- (WT-en) Colin 16:19, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Hi Colin and thanks for your response.

I sincerely apologise if the feeling is that advice is being unheeded, in fact, I'm after all the advice and feedback I can get! It's quite daunting dipping your toes into the wikivoyage community, and I'm afraid that I was too eager to get started and jumped right in, instead of having a sneaky peek around on how this all works. Rather shamefully, I've just found the Usertalk pages for every city, and it's of such a benefit that I am rather embarassed as a lot of these issues I could have posted on the city user talk pages. Now that's it been found, I'll be asking about deletions (if any!) rather than doing.

I'm currently working on a friend's computer and it's a Mac, and I'm working with Firefox. Any suggestons? I'll ask my friend for more info if that's more helpful.

Also, I'd love to hear thoughts on the issue I had with empty listings for places such as restaurants and hotels. As I mentioned, when restaurants etc don't have any reviews, I research the place and then garner any info to rewrite into a review. However, my concern is when I don't find any info, as I feel that this may be a sign that the place is no longer operating etc. As you can tell, I've been deleting this for quality reviews rather than quantity, but please let me know if this should not be the case. --(WT-en) MarinaK 17:14, 19 May 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.


MarinaK,
Good comeback. I don't think anyone doubts that your intentions are good, it's just that some of the results were difficult to cope with. It would actually have been a lot simpler if you were just an average vandal, then we would just have banned you and be done with it. Since that is not the case I think a that with a bit of education you will put all this behind you and become a very valuable member of wikivoyage.
So, lets start the education:
  1. I have already suggested that we simply revert complete edit by you if we feel that you have gone overboard, this reduces the workload on the admins and puts it back in your hands. If you want your changes to stay, you will have to retry until they are acceptable, rather than have others try and merge the deleted contents back. This seems quite fair, you break it, you fix it.
  2. No article on Wikivoyage will never be perfect. No site that is open to anyone on the planet will ever be perfect. Stub and incomplete information may be quite acceptable since they act as starting points for people to add information. I used may rather than is for a reason, will come to that in a moment
  3. Concensus on a community driven project such as Wikivoyage is very important, one can not just do your own thing, it needs to be agreed on by the community. There are many ways to seek consensus, article talk pages, policy discussion pages and as you are already doing in this case your own talk page. If you do not agree with a policy or the way things are done, raise the issue and see where it leads, the outcome might not be what you want, but as long as one accept whatever the consensus is, we will all get along well.
  4. A good example for consensus is the may I used above. Some listings (including some that you have deleted and that has been restored) might actually be valid candidates for deletion, but rather than simply deleting them it might be a good idea for you to call attention to the fact in the article talk page and give some reasons why you think they should be deleted. That way you others can follow your reasoning and are given a change to comment and give their point of view. Consensus on the matter can then be reached. The feedback will give you a good indication of what the community feel is acceptable and what is not. You don't have to do this forever, you will notice that you soon learn when to ask and when just to go ahead and do what you think is right. If you receive no feedback on the comments in the talk page within a reasonable time (we normally allow about 14 days on most things) then by all means go ahead and delete the info you find offending; no-one can blame you for not trying to find consensus first.
Colin's comment about your browser seems valid. It's quite possible that there are certain language characters that your browser is replacing with ? Give us some details on your setup and lets see if we can improve that for you.
--(WT-en) Nick 17:00, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Hi Nick. Thanks for taking the time to teach me all you know, I'm an eager student!

I just mentioned this to Colin before but I only just found the Usertalk page for each city (yes, I'm embarased, perhaps one day I'll be able to laugh about it though?!). I can see what a benefit the Usertalk page is, and will definitely be using it in the future for suggestions or advice.

Regarding, point number 1, I'm totally on board with that, it's only fair.

I'm slowly realising how different it is working in this medium, rather than print publishing. As a Commissioning Editor, it was my job to make sure everything in an author's manuscript was perfect, and it's taking me a bit of time to adjust to real time Wikivoyage. I'm learning to let go of my stringent editing instincts and to embrace the collabrativeness of a Wikivoyage article. By explaining my past professional history, I'm trying to show where I'm coming from, and why I may seem rather stubborn in regards to perfect editing ; )

You gave me a great explanation on consensus within the wikivoyage community and I will ensure that as I learn to create and edit wiki pages, I'll be looking for consensus first.

Again, I really appreciate everyone's feedback and advice.

--(WT-en) MarinaK 17:37, 19 May 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.

I'd like to revisit this nomination. Marina is keeping removing useful content without giving any explanation at all. It takes quite much time to review her edits, and to undelete pieces she removed. No specific idea what to do, just a plea for help. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:56, 4 March 2009 (EST)

User:김인호 (delenda est) 돼지박사

Appears to be either a bot or a really dedicated weirdo cultivating a link farm about "genetic polymorphism" (!?) on his own Talk page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:15, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Can't we just delete his talk page and ignore him? Shouldn't we delete his talk page anyway? --(WT-en) Jonboy 13:59, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm, I'm fairly confident this is a MkPaolo suckpuppet btw. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 12:25, 5 November 2009 (EST)

This user should be banned, They often change correct information and make it false As can be seen by checking his edits. A history of changeing the phone numbers, addresses and names of establishments at will is my reason. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 58.8.2.246 (talk • contribs)

User:Eric Bauman

Swept in from the pub:

The chances that User:(WT-en) Eric Bauman is actually Eric Bauman are vanishingly slim. User should be blocked indefinitely rather than just for a week. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:42, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm rather tempted to block this user, who has yet to make a single edit that does not constitute edit warring on Angeles. He/she also will not respond to requests to discuss, rather than edit war, and to respect the rules of Project:Consensus. Normally I would temp protect the page in question to wait for things to cool down, but I'd rather not protect the page all the way up to sysop. Would a temporary ban be appropriate? If not, I would appreciate it if more Wikivoyageers would watch Angeles to revert continued edits from this user. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:43, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

I can't imagine banning will help, he'll just create a new user account... but I'll warn him against edit warring as well now... re: Angeles, it would be nice to rewrite the article a bit into something hopefully more agreeable to all but that that still describes the nightlife correctly yet succinctly... – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Skylights76 is posting porn

Skylights76 is constantly replacing great article with offending porn pictures. He for example today replaced the site for Xi'an China. And looking at his contributions he is constantly doing it to a lot of pages.

Actually, I'd support a ban for this type of vandalism. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
I think we should handle it the same as page-move vandalism... if they're on a roll and vandalizing a ton of pages, ban them for a day or whatever we usually do, banning longer than that and they'll just create a new account and do the same thing... lengthy blocks are irrelevant – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 15:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Sounds fair. I'll withdraw my support, now that I've figured out what the vandal was actually doing, and especially since we've now blocked this type of vandalism via our blacklist. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Making mass unwarranted deletions to Glasgow and Edinburgh pages.

We're very loathe to block users, unless it's only for a temp block for mass "move vandalism" or a permanent block for unacceptable user names (per above). I think this one can be taken care of by simple reverts. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:22, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

I would prefer not to do this, but over the past month, I have felt unwelcomed. I love this site and how it promotes but the people here haven't really got along. Anyways, I get the feeling of hate by all janitors, and don't deny it or call me crazy because you know it is true and youd feel the same. I have helped try and bring new concepts, 99 % of which, seem to be hated. I cannot seem to communicate well with most people and I get rude comments. I have been threatened a lot to get banned, so, in light of that thing, why don't we see how many people want me to go. If there is a lot of people, then you don't even need to ban me, I'd just go unless of a reason. It is quite hurtfull but I cannot go on with people I know hate me. Hopefully we can settle this, but if not, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST).

Oh for the love of god, stop being such a drama queen *sigh* --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 22:36, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Thanks Sertmann, you are so kind. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 22:37, 6 December 2008 (EST).
  • Oppose. None of the reasons cited justify a ban. If you don't want to contribute then don't, but unless a change is made in the user ban policy then no ban should be made. For the record, it's edits like this ban nomination that have led to question about the motivation behind many of your edits. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:40, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Explain. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 22:42, 6 December 2008 (EST).
Explain what, that hasn't already been explained in awe-inspiring detail? As Ryan said, if you don't want to contribute, don't. Putting yourself up for a ban is beyond pointless. Please stop trying to use this site as a social networking tool, and please stop fishing for praise and abuse, neither are coming. Contribute with WT's goals in mind, or leave, it's up to you – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:17, 6 December 2008 (EST)
  • Oppose. User bans are an extreme last resort on this site, and the only cases we have allowed for permanent bans are for doppelgangers per above. AFAIK temp bans have only ever been enacted to temporarily halt move vandalism, and for users running unapproved scripts. Bans are an extreme last resort on Wikivoyage, and it is a point of pride that we, unlike other wikis, do not use them to deal with contributors, no matter how much trouble they cause. I do not want to see this tradition broken, nor a precedent set that we can simply avoid the hard work of running a wiki by tossing around ip/account blocks. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:35, 6 December 2008 (EST)
  • Oppose. I'd also suggest wasting no further time or space discussing it. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:26, 7 December 2008 (EST)

This "user" comes through about once a week to spam Hyatt listings and to add touting language to ones that exist. It has neither responded nor heeded comments left on its talk page, and I'm tired of seeing listings added to Chesapeake Bay and other region pages over and over. I've just been reverting all changes from this ip, but I'd hate to miss a batch. Since it's a static ip, I think it would be a net benefit to the site to just block this ip permanently. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:02, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Any thoughts on this? I really think it would be beneficial to block this ip. Like I said it's static, it sporadically makes a bunch of touting/xl-violating edits, which are all small enough to easily fly under the radar. I see only positives to such a block. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)
I'm also rather suspicious that this ip is running an unapproved script. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:51, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Ban it, but keep it open to creating accounts as there may be another person using that ip in the future or the ip may change to another. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:08, 24 November 2008 (EST).
I hate the precedent of blocking an IP for making travel-related edits, even if they do violate site policy and the user refuses to respond to comments and other attention-getting methods. Do we have any other alternatives? Is there a way to block a specific IP address from editing without blocking them from the site entirely? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:42, 24 November 2008 (EST)
I'm confused—isn't that what an ip block does? I didn't think that an ip block prevents that ip from doing anything other than editing. But yeah, I also sympathize with you on not wanting to establish this as a precedent. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)
You're right - I was under the impression that a block prevented a user from using the site, but per the Mediawiki guide it apparently stops them from editing everything but their user page. I guess I'm ambivalent on this one - I understand the reason for wanting to block this user / script, but at the same time I'm nervous about the precedent it sets so it would be good to see feedback from a few other users. A shorter (non-permanent block) would be less objectionable as it might catch the user's attention and at least get them to engage us via their talk page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:34, 24 November 2008 (EST)
I agree strongly with your worries about setting a bad precedent just for one bad case. And there are better ways to deal with this if I care to do so (like keeping a closer eye on his contribution history). I'll close this nomination and archive it. If anyone would like to reopen it, just bring back this conversation supported by a new rationale. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:35, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I nominate this user for a one month ban. The user has trouble understanding various policies but has been unwilling to help themselves, preferring instead to ask for help. This formerly useful and helpful contributor has been reduced to working on nothing within the guide preferring instead to vent at people he sees as his opponents rather than just trying to work things out. As this is a community project, being able to work things out with others is quite simply a prerequisite which the user is now failing at. I believe the user should be given some time away from this project. If he then wishes to return and work collaboratively while ignoring stuff he might not like, then he would be most welcome.

  • Support. Please note the archive of his talk page at User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald/EEarchive, lest anyone think that this is a recent phenomenon or that good faith efforts have not been made. Phrases like "before I crack", "You can do whatever the hell you want I am not gonna attempt to control you like you do me", and the whole of his current user page indicate a profoundly unhealthy relationship with this site. He needs time away from it. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 07:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Oppose, for now. According to Project:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban, user bans "are embarassing, 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." As such, I recommend instead a formal request that EE voluntarily step away from the site for a period of time. Imposing a ban on him will only feed his developing persecution complex, whereas requesting a voluntary separation will a) show that we respect him and his contributions, b) treat him with the dignity he deserves as a fellow Wikivoyageer, and c) provide him with an opportunity to prove that he can cooperate with us and exert self-control. Previously, any similar recommendations have been presented as just that -- recommendations. If we make it a formal request, as an alternative to this distasteful process of an actual ban, I hold out hope that it will get through to him. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support -- EE has already been asked many times to step away from the site for a while, and has not really done so. Even when he has sworn in the past to stay out of anything but actual articles he has soon set exceptions for himself and subsequently come right back around to stirring up useless crap again. In response to LtPowers points: a) and b) I do respect some contributions he has made to actual articles, and that point has been stressed over and over to him many times by many users, far more than most contributors ever hear about, but I really believe the community has pretty much run out of respect for him because respect has to be reciprocal, and EE has pretty blatant disregard for the way the community works. c) I wouldn't even know how to count all the chances we have given him-- so many that we even refused his own ban self-nomination a few weeks ago. We need to draw the line somewhere, and maybe if we get serious and force it on him it might actually cause him to figure out what he is doing to cause such problems, rather than telling himself he is just staying away to appease unreasonable people who don't understand him. (WT-en) Texugo 10:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support. I like LtPowers idea of a formal request to voluntarily step away, but I'm skeptical that EE would abide by it. He's indicated he will take a break from the site or certain activities (policy discussions for example) in the past and always come back very quickly. He's very wound up right now and has a strong attachment to this site, I think we should make the break for him. He has made valuable contributions in the past and, hopefully, after some time away, he will do so again. (WT-en) Shaund 10:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Neutral Support. I think a one-month ban is unprecedented and really harsh, but stunts like his current user page and the fact that he hasn't contributed anything sensible for over a week are doing a really good job of eroding any remaining sympathy, and I don't really have any better ideas at this point. However, I think it's important to stress that this block's purpose is to cool down the situation, and that he is welcome back afterwards if he wants to contribute positively to the site. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)
    • Changed my vote (a little late...) after EE rejected the offered wikibreak as "retarded". (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:50, 16 January 2009 (EST)
  • Oppose -> Support. How about giving EE one last chance? We clearly state the parameters where he can focus his efforts (eg: Edmonton and western Canada), and at the same time stipulate that a one month ban will be automatically implemented if he breaks the terms. Personally, I prefer not to see any one banned unless absolutely necessary, and EE does have the potential to be a productive contributor. (WT-en) WindHorse 11:07, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Strong Support. Texugo pretty much echoes my sentiments. We could go on for years "giving one more chance" to figure it out on his own, every time another gf user pleas for it on his behalf... I like that we have a compassionate side, but it's been abused in an spectacular way. From very early on with EE it was clear that his main interest here has not been in writing travel guides, but in sparking community interaction by any means necessary, including asking, pleading, coaxing, harrassing, insulting it out of us. One after another we took turns trying to mentor him and get him on the right track, in an unprecedented way... He received 200x as much attention and guidance as any other user I've ever seen here. In retrospect, I think this has worked to our disadvantage. If EE is a serious user, he has to really try to understand that our community doesn't really work that way... we're all just volunteers, working largely on our own, unnoticed, and with a minimal amount of input from other editors when it's really necessary, or if they share your interest in a city. If he does come back to the site after a break, it should only be with this in mind. I personally am not interested in watching dozens more good contributors spend silly amounts of energy trying to guide someone to the light, when he already has been handed every map ever printed that will lead him there – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 11:36, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support. While I would like to support the compassionate side of this issue with Windhorse, I think that Jpatokal and Peter, who have been patient, along with others, may have never had the benefit that I have had, of raising two sons. Once you raise some children, you may take a different outlook on someone like EE. It appears to me that his participation has been at the expense of somewhat long term relationships that had been developed by outstanding contributors over a long period of time. So, in my opinion EE, like any child with behavioral problems must be taught the price of misbehavior, after so many warnings which seem to only feed his problem. So I am in favor of a one month ban and total ban if his behavior does not improve to a point where he is no longer a distraction to the other contributors. (WT-en) 2old 12:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Neutral. I really had hoped it would not come to this. While I don't think any of us can really criticise the contributions Ee has made to most of the guide articles he's worked on, I have to agree that some of his recent behaviour on user pages has been borderline to wrong. I think it's important to note the way his contrib log shows a tailing off of guide work and more user and user talk entries... If this were not the case, I would be more inclined to oppose, but he's really not helped himself. On the other hand I don't feel I can support the ban either. I am not trying to make any accusations on any individual, but lately I do feel certain users have, perhaps, been overly harsh on Ee. Sadly, I don't think this is has been as productive as hoped and is probably more likely to provoked Ee somewhat. 2old, you mention children... While I don't have any of my own, I've grown up around enough to spot that many children see things like "Don't do that" or "No" as a challenge (not saying they all do). It was probably inevitable that a situation like this would eventually arise - human nature and a collaborative environment really can't do anything other than head toward it. What we have to be very careful of here is that this case will probably set a precedent which could come back to haunt us! Ee, if you read this I stongly suggest that you take down your user page as that is starting to go too far now (and I'm loathe to blank it or ask an admin to do so given the current debate on that matter) and that you either promise to take a 1 month break from the project; and when you return to keep to working on guides and slowly become involved in further aspects of the site over time; and most importantly listen to and act on the advice that you are given. (WT-en) Nrms 12:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support The current state of things, should give a clear cut indication of how harmfull EE has been to the site, far more so than the positive contributions done. I can't think of any approach that haven't been tried, so reluctant as i am, this seem to be the only road we haven't travelled. (WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) 14:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Indeed (WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) 14:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support There are two possibilities, either the whole wild swinging from hyper-friendly to hyper-aggressive is just a troll, or EE's is who his says he is. In case 1, the reasons for my support are evident. In case 2, I agree with the reasoning of (WT-en) 2old. --(WT-en) Inas 17:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I am who I say I am. I can't really do anything more to convince you - it's all about believing. Like I believe you are who ya say ya are. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:51, 12 January 2009 (EST).
  • Neutral. I haven't been following the user's contributions carefully enough to have a strong opinion. I wanted to express my appreciation though, for this discussion, which is well-reasoned. I also wanted to express a little regret that things have come to this. My user page used to say, "I am one of Wikivoyage's administrators. This gives me several powers, some of which (e.g. blocking IP addresses, protecting pages) Wikivoyage prides itself on never using." I changed "never" to "rarely" at some point. Guess I'd better get rid of the whole sentence. --(WT-en) Jonboy 18:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Neutral, also. I've been doing my homework and I'm somewhat indecisive. He's been around for 2.5 months, so I understand when people get annoyed that he doesn't get it through his head. (Reminds me of Mainer2006/Traveler2006) But, I do see how easily I could get annoyed if no one responded to my questions/comments, but, then again, I can see how annoyed I, as an admin, would be if a persistently annoying person kept asking me the same damn questions over and not reading any of the policy pages I pointed to him on multiple occasions. Then again, if I were a user in his position, I'd either say 'fuck this' and leave or find something else to do on the site that was constructive and not time wasting. I'm also perplexed and uncomfortable by EE continuing to welcome new users despite obvious dissatisfaction with his behavior. I especially do not believe he should be welcoming users when he's had a history of abrasive comments toward others (I am not referring to anything he's said to admins, but to new users who, by accident, screwed something up). Finally, I, like Jonboy, am a little sad to see the Evan wiki philosophy die out. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 19:49, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Support. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 22:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Not even just dissatisfaction with behavior in general, but has specifically been asked at least 2 or 3 times not to welcome new users. This is a prime example of how pretty much everything falls on deaf ears. As for Evan's wiki philosophy, it's not dying out — just because you lose your virginity doesn't mean you have to move straight into the slutty phase of your life. We'll continue to have dignity, keep our legs closed, and engage with only the most persistent aggressors – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Anyone can change their user page to say whatever they like. We've certainly established that, with the diatribes against Peter and Cacahaute here. But I take strong exception to the idea that Wikivoyage has abandoned its pride in rarely using blocks, and has now embraced some harsh new wiki philosophy. This user ban discussion has taken place over one day so far, but for the very small group of admins who do the day-to-day work on this site — spambots, patrolling recent changes, et al — this has taken place over more than two and a half months. We have taken pride in being welcoming and supportive beyond reproach. The vast majority of the burden of dealing with this user has been placed on a couple of admins, primarily Peter and Cacahaute. They signed up to be janitors, and instead they've spent two and a half months being therapists, guidance counselors, and targets of abuse from this user. To quote from elsewhere on this site, we're janitors, goddammit. What has any of this got to do with producing a travel guide? How many recent changes are going unpatrolled while we deal with this? There is an element of personal responsibility on EE's part for his own conduct that has been and continues to be completely ignored.
I'm mystified by how anyone who's taken a responsible reading of this situation could think that a single question of EE's has not been answered. Follow the talk pages and edit summaries, and it's all there. When he gets an answer he doesn't like, he carries on as if he hasn't received an answer. It's that simple. Has anyone looked at the amount of valid information that EE has deleted from Edmonton today alone? It's not an isolated occurrence. If this ban doesn't pass, it's on those who opposed it to take over dealing with EE, full-time, and not just when it reaches the unprecedented level of a user ban nomination. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:02, 13 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support. I'm not a fan of bans for a number of reasons, but EE is either a very persistent troll or he is for some reason incapable of interacting normally with others and in either case would benefit from time away from the site. Comments such as the one below about restoring his inflammatory user page (amongst many, many others) indicate a complete inability to deal with conflicts in a reasonable manner. The Edmonton articles are much better due to his attention, but for the sake of the Wikivoyage community and EE's mental well-being he needs a forced break from editing here. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:05, 14 January 2009 (EST)
What is that supposed to mean? I have a mental problem? Since I am so terrible, how should I handle this, Ryan, about my problems "below"? Huh? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:34, 14 January 2009 (EST).
Seriously, detach yourself from others' comments. I'm afraid that you're taking comments on here way to seriously. I like you and I haven't ever met you, but I'm worried after reading many of your comments that you take others' comments on here way too seriously. None of these comments should make you angry or whatever. If someone comes across as rude, just ignore it. Move on. That's what I do. Whenever my roommate and I start joking around and he takes it to a completely unexpected and impolite level, I just ignore him. I live with the guy and I am good friends with him, because I can ignore his occasionally stupid comments. You're inability to stop commenting and take things personally worries me that you will be unable to relax. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:41, 14 January 2009 (EST)

(WT-en) EE's response

Well am I allowed to comment on this or will someone just revert it? Basically on one side I totally guessed the people who would support this. People like Shaund, I am surprised, but I guess you've shown your true colours. In any rate, I am glad that you guys are discussing this thoughtfully and everything. The common theme I see is that you don't see my side. If you had a similar situation - I am sure AT LEAST half of you would be "out of control" as I am. Again I haven't meant no harm to this site but this is getting out of control. People said I have set limits to myself - yes I have - then you say I quickly go back - yes, I do - I never said it would be seven and a half months. Others say I don't take breaks - what are ya a spy? Seriously you don't know if I take a break from the site - which i have. Previous to the recent stuff, I only patrolled the Edmonton articles for like a week and a half. I was taking a break because I lost motivation. I still don't have motivation. Why? Look how nice you guys are being to me, overall. Although, some of you have made a good point, banning me will only make the situation worse, as have previous bans. Jpatokal has not aggravated me and has helped me on some cases, so I don't see where you get ideas that are against that. A couple times he bugged me, but yeah, it's over with that. The only people I have a problem with are Peter and Cacahuate. You guys, just look at where I'm coming from - if you had the same thing happen, you probably would be angry too. In any rate, it would be really nice to have this kept for reference n what not. I hope you realize, unlike some contributors, I will show my feelings and will actually get angry and not like some who can be ridiculed without any care. Anyways, I will let the conversation of this continue, and later on I will tell you what I think as I am still thinking things and also want to see more opinions. So, for now, Neutral. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 16:28, 12 January 2009 (EST).

We won't revert this comment, you've said your piece, people know where you're coming from. I'll trust that you will help to keep this page focused and concise though, I appreciate your willingness to think things through more before any further comments. Also, fyi, it's not customary for users to vote on their own nomination of any sort on a wiki :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 17:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Hi Cacahuate. Just cause it isnt normal doesn't mean it can't change. Anyways, I have seen many noms where the bannie talks their opinion on the thing. That is kind of what I am doing. I also want to think things over about the fact if I want to maybe make a deal, do something someone said, ask for another chance, do the 1 month ban, do a permanent ban, and all that jambo. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:49, 12 January 2009 (EST).
If you have an alternative ("a deal") for us, we are most certainly willing to listen. I think we would all prefer it if a different path was available to us. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:09, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Yes I understand and I do have one but me saying it may get people to think that's what I really want to happen which I am still unsure of. So, please, lemme think. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 23:17, 12 January 2009 (EST).
I object for two reasons:
1) I still would like to see more opinions
2) I still want to think things over, as I have some ideas.

(WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:51, 13 January 2009 (EST).

And I want a pony! (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)
What the hell? And you wonder why I get angry! Is this to torment me or just to make a joke? Either way it's innapropriate. Don't mock me and don't be arrogant. I have an opinion and as do you but I don't go around making you feel like an idiot or that your opinion doesn't count. the Golden Rule? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 22:28, 13 January 2009 (EST).
This section is called "Objections", but you're not objecting to anything anybody has said, you just want a pony "more opinions" and to "think things over". Why should that sway any of us? (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:43, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Just to show me you actually have a heart and give me some time. Look below - I posted it because you guys were being impatient about it. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:28, 14 January 2009 (EST).

My ideas:

1) Ask me to not log in but to still be able to work on the site anonymously, this would make me less likely to go into discussion outside of say Talk:Edmonton, Talk:Edmonton/Old Strathcona-University, etc. The only time should I be allowed to go online is if there is a problem (i.e. technically). This would be in effect for 1 entire month. If I am caught posting in an account without a good reason (i.e. question me before making claims) then you formally block me from the site in every way for 1 month.
2) Give me, as others have said, 1 more chance. Simply that, just give me another chance.
3) Give me another week. If (after this discussion) there’s still big hiccups and whatnot and I am not contributing aside from those “hiccups” then a full 1 month ban is in place.

Do any of these seem reasonable? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 22:33, 13 January 2009 (EST).

  1. In reality, this would just make it harder to contain and identify your behaviour.
  2. In complete fairness, you have had chance, after chance after chance. Even during this dicussion, you have not been able to refrain from inappropriate actions even while this discussion was taking place!
  3. See previous point.

This discussion has only been reached after everything else has been tried, more than once, more than twice. Suggesting we try something that did not work on multiple occasions previously, would be an exercise in futility, and take even more time and overhead to manage.

At this point, you have had the opportunity to read the comments of many people on your disruption. You have to accept some responsibility for this. Wikivoyage has never reached this point with any other user before now. Not with trolls, not with vandals, not with the most disruptive editors that have been here. Never.

If you really are not a troll, like you say you are not, take some advice from people outside of the wiki, take some responsibility instead of blaming others, and take some time away from the wiki.

If you still persist after all of this, if you continue to edit, abuse, and then seek forgiveness again, then I really cannot believe you are anything other than a very successful troll, achieving what many others have failed to do. If so, well done, congrats, and now bugger off. --(WT-en) Inas 22:51, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Inas - I can tell you my IP address, although it might be changing soon, so I would have to say the new one. The difference between the 1 week thing and the no limit thing is if you just monitor another week of me, that's it and if something goes wrong, then we can go through the 1 m ban process. Inas - I have taken many breaks from this website. for like 15 days i just patrolled stuff then i was upset by someone and we got into this. other times i have stepped away from the computer blah blah blah blah. but it does not change my opinion, just calms me down - which i do believe is the point. Well I am not a troll - in fact before coming to this site, I didn't know what it was and had to wiki it when I was labelled it. I am still not entirely sure of the concept especially considering a troll wouldn't care about the website or contribute to it well and whatnot - or from what I've read. Inas, whether or not you believe me is a worry of me, I told you the truth, and I know that truth, if you fail to agree with it well I cannot do anything. Again - seriously consider my ideas. I would rather not feel like an idiot with those ideas, I actually thought they were good. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 23:47, 13 January 2009 (EST).
EE: read this information on "misidentified" trolls. I'm with Inas - I'm very suspicious that you are merely a very bored and very patient troll. If you are a troll then I would prefer not to interact with you at all. If you are not a troll then you either need to work on your behavior (see the previous link for suggestions) or find some other place to fill your free time. No response to this comment is necessary - I don't have anything further to add, and (for what it's worth) one of the easiest ways to spot a troll is when someone needlessly drags on a conversation without adding anything new to the discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Agree with Inas and Ryan. All of your options above still involve us monitoring your actions, and that's not why any of us are participating in Wikivoyage. By asking for another chance, you're saying "give me another chance to just try to contain my silliness (or further mask my inner troll)", when what you should be doing, if the tiny chance that you are a serious user is real, is taking a step back from the site, for a month, and just observing how the community works without you. Watch how other users are able to pick up on policies, practices, and our goals with just a small amount of guidance. Watch how every other user on this site just wants to write a travel guide, and aren't seeking out excessive interaction as if this were facebook. And watch how all of the users you've been working hard at distracting for the last few months get back to producing travel guides. If you do come back in a month, you will be given very little further guidance, everything you ever need to be told has already been said. What you now refer to as being ignored (when people won't explain something to you more than once) is actually just the way things work, and is what you can expect a lot more of. If you don't like that, then you should probably find a new hobby – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 11:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

This how you feel? You cannot even acknowledge my ideas? I was even gonna work on Edmonton a bit again. You cannot even appreciate me? Hmm? Fine - you want me to leave this site forever? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:22, 14 January 2009 (EST).

  • I can live with that. (WT-en) 2old 13:41, 14 January 2009 (EST)
  • Yes, I would prefer it. But that's your choice. If you stick around, shape up and check your baggage at the door – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 14:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)
  • Note to EE: that is a textbook example of your overly dramatic reactions. Your ideas have been acknowledged, it's just that these users have rejected them as insufficient. Your contributions have been appreciated -- repeatedly, and more thoroughly than almost anyone else's. Yet you are still not satisfied and you continue the melodrama. If you still cannot see why this is not garnering you any friends, I don't know what else to say. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)
LtPowers, why wouldn't I be giving a "melodrama" after the comments above yours. 2old has been nothing but rude to me my whole experience and Cacahuate isn't much better ( I am actually thinking of bringing back that user page thing ). It is all getting out of hand and I fail to see why you interrogate me but not people who've been rude to me. Come on! (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 16:56, 14 January 2009 (EST).

It seems certain that the ban will go into effect and that the community will not accept the terms you suggested, because your terms effectively amount to a block and we haven't seen a cohesive and very cognitive counter argument to the proposed block. All I have seen is 'why don't you treat me right?' I would've been inclined to oppose your block if you at least didn't keep replying to comments and dragging this on. If someone says something mean to you at school, what do you do? Do you repeatedly ask them to stop being mean to you? No, you don't because it eventually borders on pathetic, because you can't simply have the courage to ignore people and go about yourself. If you were sincere about your proposed terms of working solely on Edmonton related articles, you would've begun the moment you posted your ideas. If you had gone about that, I would lean even further toward opposing this nomination. I, however, do not see much sincerity or the capacity to comprehend the idea of just ignoring people or conflicts. If after the block, you can learn not to invest so much emotional stock into the website, I would encourage you to come back. But, if you're still very much emotionally attached to Wikivoyage, I'd suggest you stay away for a little longer so that you can develop a sense that Wikivoyage isn't as important as it's come to be in your life. What people write here or the way you're treated on here, shouldn't make you angry and shouldn't have any physically disadvantageous effects on you. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:21, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I am not attached, Sapphire, to this website in the way you think. In any way, if you block me for a month I am never going to come back to this site and will hate talk it to everyone I can. I will never forgive this site for the abusive treatment. I don't mean that comment to sway someone's opinion or to be a threat or whatever else you guys can come up with but it's true - simply that. Maybe I am just not as mature as you guys and maybe I want to be involved in the community - that is not bad in any way. Every other site I am encouraged to participate. Is this the anti social hangout or whatever? Even Wikipedia seems to have better interaction with the people. And you can quit with the "ooh they have more users than us" - tuff! I actually liked this site but this has gotten out of hand. If you don't want my help on articles, which is evident I am not going to waste my time here anymore and you guys can deal with incorrect information from new edits or ones that were better before or leaving closed businesses up - that's fine. Let the Alberta articles rot. Now you are probably thinking, "so, it's just Alberta - how gives a crap about it?" right? I've gotten hints about that about my Edmonton work so whatever. My goodness - I've lost sight of why I was writting this. I will keep this comment for the community to see. This is quite sad. This has got to be the worst treated I have ever been on a website - it's like a restaurant with crappy food and crappy service - I won't be coming back (per statements already said, and if) and I won't recommend it and if there was a site for that sort of thing, I would give it a bad review. That sort of thing. Whatever. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:42, 14 January 2009 (EST).
You are, once again, conflating criticism of the way you interact with other people with a personal attack, a rejection of you personally and of your work. How many times have you been told that your work on this site is commendable? How many? Yet you still say stuff like "If you don't want my help on articles". On the contrary, had you restricted your interaction to articles, we wouldn't be here right now. Instead, you a) begged for attention, b) overwhelmed the site with your questions and requests for advice and assistance, c) consistently failed to take that advice and assistance when it came to interacting with others, d) were rude to new users when they did something slightly wrong, and e) overreacted completely whenever anyone said anything the least bit critical. You are doing it again -- overreacting at the slightest criticism. People got tired of your reactions, so they started ignoring you. Then you were persistent in asking why people were ignoring you, so they started reverting you. Then you were persistent about restoring your text, so they started blocking you. And now we're here, and you still haven't learned how to interact well with others. (Hint: threatening people with "I'm going to badmouth your work" is childish in the extreme.) (WT-en) LtPowers 19:02, 14 January 2009 (EST)
So Peter and Cacahuate (I am sick of not saying their names, they need to be heard) were write in reverting my questions that would only help me further? I still can't get over how if a user is respectable that means they cannot do anything wrong at all because they are divine on this website for some stupid reason. Seriously, what they did was unbelieveably rude. Sure, I wasn't able to let it go, but that is how I am but they couldn't reply even one time? Come on. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:23, 14 January 2009 (EST).
Well, maybe you really haven't checked. I don't feel like turing this into a big debatacle and make it all against certain person so I won't. But quite frankly, there have been a lot of reverts I don't think you, Gorilla, notice some of my questions are truly unanswered. Some have answers, but they do little to explain, and I ask further and it is reverted. Of course I'm gonna get angry. Gorilla - you don't know nearly as much about Edmonton as I do and I know what is valid and what is not. I am not doing if for anything but to create a good guide. The stuff I deleted from there, some was valid and if you have any questions as to why I deleted stuff, please don't hesitate to ask me in my talk page where we can have a discussion, okay? If you don't want to participate, Gorilla, go back to your patrolling and whatever else. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 11:11, 13 January 2009 (EST).
EE, let me teach you about the First Rule of Holes, which says: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Your comment above does an excellent job of demonstrating all of your worst traits: it's a) irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand, b) interprets criticism as a personal attack, and c) blames other people for your own failure to understand and follow even basic, fundamental site rules like "be civil" and "do not edit war". (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:46, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Jani, let me teach you that it is not just me. I just said for Gorilla to continue this off topic discussion in my talk page, if he had any further questions. I have not presented personal attacks in that post, what, "go back to patrolling, etc." is an attack? C'mon - I am just saying if he wants to he can go back, nobodies forcin' him. I don't blame other people. I just let other people know my side, and sometimes, sorry to break it to ya, it isn't just me involved - I know, as shocking as it is. Jani, like Gorilla, if you need to discuss this further, as you yourself are going off topic, please feel free to discuss it in my talk page. Now let's get back on topic, thankyou. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 11:54, 13 January 2009 (EST).
That noise you hear is EE sucking you further into this black hole of a debate. I suggest the consensus is overwhelming, ban him for a month and get it over, before he sucks you senseless. (WT-en) 2old 12:42, 13 January 2009 (EST)
What are you talking about? And you say I'm abusive? Come on and quit making crap up. Let us bring this back on topic. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:50, 13 January 2009 (EST).
2old, if people were getting off topic and talking about you in an irrelevant place, don't you think the polite thing to do is to say to continue this on my talk page and get back on topic? What do you expect me to say? All I am doing is trying to help this by telling people to get back on topic. I am not "dualing" or "arguing" for a debate or anything, I do not see where you get this pile of crap from. I am just being sincere and polite by asking them if they want to continue this discussion to do so in my talk page. Would you rather me just say Shut up and get back on topic? Pull-eeze. If you did had the same problem going on, I wouldn't be mean to you or try and get (once again, yes, everytime you talk about me it's negative) people against me or anything. So please, try to be nice and if you have negativity towards me, do something that I can't do, be polite about it. I think I've made it very clear. I don't wanna be an ass, but if you make another negative comment like that which is so far from the truth, I will revert it. Wow - this got longer than I wanted - but I hope my point's clear. Now we are seriously off topic, so if you have any more questions, 2old, ask me in my talk page, not here. You know, sometimes I feel you know (people here in general) what will get this off topic and you do that, and then when i reply to that and say to continue in my talk page, you say mean stuff about me or say that comment was useless or whatever. That's just plain mean. Once again ---- Back on topic. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:01, 13 January 2009 (EST).

Summary

Consensus seems to be leaning towards a ban.

The current (moderate) dissent comes from (WT-en) LtPowers and (WT-en) Windhorse. I believe their objections would be met at this point by a request for the user to have a voluntary break from the site, rather than an enforced one, for one month. Should that voluntary break not occur, however, we would need to proceed to the next step of a ban.

Does this position hold any objectors (other than the user)? - Request voluntary break from editing for one month. Follow up with one month ban should this not occur? --(WT-en) Inas 17:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I have no objections to that; though perhaps a forced voluntary retreat is the same as a ban and should just be such so that it's on record in his block log. But I'm fine either way – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)
No objections, I think we're as close to consensus as we'll ever get on this. However, I think a self-enforced "retreat" would be preferable to a ban and should not be considered one, since if voluntarily maintained, it would at least show good faith on EE's part. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)
So, do the three of you want to change from support/neutral to oppose? I'm a little at a lost on this? -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 15:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Of course not. I suppose we're now just deciding if the block button is going to be pushed at the 3 day mark, or if EE is going to be asked to take a 1 month leave voluntarily. I don't think that EE's actions over the past 2 days have shown any move towards reasonability, or any progress with getting in tune with community practices, and still feel swayed towards an outright block. Also consider that if he doesn't stay away for a month, we're back to having to draw everyone into this again to discuss the next step – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 16:10, 14 January 2009 (EST)
I second that motion --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:19, 14 January 2009 (EST)
My only intention in proposing the voluntary ban ahead of the block, was to try and incorporate the views of (WT-en) LtPowers and (WT-en) Windhorse, so we could have complete unanimity. I remain in support of a 1 month ban. If we decide to do the voluntary step before the ban, then we should agree the two step process, so we don't end up here again. --(WT-en) Inas 21:32, 14 January 2009 (EST)
A voluntary one month cooling period sounds good... If EE follows the agenda, it shows good will on his part, which will allow him to participate again after one month. If the pact is broken, then I guess there is no option other than to implement an automatic one moth cooling period. And EE, don't take this as a slap in the face, but a time to let things calm down. When matters get heated, mistakes are made. This is a time to read over comments and reflect, ok? If you follow the request to take a one month break, you will be welcome to participate after that period. I strongly recommend you accept it. (WT-en) WindHorse 21:47, 14 January 2009 (EST)
So, we are waiting or not? Colin's nomination didn't include this option and I'm not sure if there's a consensus for this approach. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:36, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Lets not twist ourselves around in a knot here. If the consensus is for a one month ban, if the user implements this voluntarily, there is no need for any technical option to enforce it. The wikivoyager's passport has been suspended for a month, but if they don't try to edit during the suspension period, there is nothing more to do. --(WT-en) Inas 00:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)
I have plunged forward and asked him. If he does not accept by tomorrow (00:00 16 January EST), it's time to block. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:27, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Reply to WindHorse

WindHorse, I appreciate that comment. I just don't see me coming back after one month in a good manner. Not after how I have been treated. I probably won't want to contribute because I will feel like an idiot, like everyone staring like "oooh that's the freak" or something and I'd rather not. So (most likely) it's either attempt to work with me and show me ways that I am going wrong that I don't seem to understand and I don't really see this, but people said "carve me into a great contributor", so either that or I won't be seen on this site. As it looks more and more clear of the 2nd, in agreement, I want that EEarchive deleted. Like I said it's an embarrasement. I think that is only fair.
I suggest that you don't limit your options at this stage. Just take a month breathing space, then make a decision whether to rejoin the community or not. I can say no more. The decision lies entirely with you. (WT-en) WindHorse 22:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)
I am not limiting myself in any which way. I am just giving you all a head's up. I know myself well so I am being realistic and whatnot just for your guys's information that it is probably going to happen. Not what'll happen but what will probably happen. On the off chance I am not utterly ticked off at this site, I may come back and contribute. Quite frankly everyone saying "you'll be welcome back" is making me feel like I won't feel welcome and stuff. I don't know why - but that is just how I feel. ee 22:42, 14 January 2009 (EST).
At this stage I think we need a simple answer. Here are the options: 1. Yes, I accept the voluntary one month cooling period, during which time I will not contribute to any Wikivoyage article. 2. No, I don't accept. 3. Any replies other than these will be taken as a dissent. If you choose option 1, it will show some good will on your part, but if you choose 2 or 3 then, according to the consensus, an automatic one month ban will be imposed. As said earlier, I suggest you take option number 1, and I personally hope to see your 'positive' contributions in one month, but the choice is yours. (WT-en) WindHorse 22:54, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Contributor Saphire has raised an objection to this solution, so EE there is no need to reply. My apologies for jumping the gun. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:48, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Seriously delete the EEarchive out of respect. That is all I am asking. Is it too hard? 207.34.90.163 23:49, 14 January 2009 (EST).

Can someone acknowledge that?
Like everything else on WT, the EEarchive is CC-licensed, and Peter (or anybody else) has every right to make a copy of it. In my opinion, if you are banned, then the archive should definitely be preserved so future Wikivoyagers can see what led us to this point. However, if you accept the voluntary break and contribute positively afterwards, then maybe Peter would be willing to reconsider. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:35, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks

I just wanted to find somewhere to say thank you to those who have taken the time to deal with and contribute to managing this issue. Particularly to those, including Peter and Cacahuate, who have been on the receiving end of personal attacks as a result, which should be unnecessary when are just trying to write a travel guide. I know it isn't much fun. Anyway, I know this probably isn't the right place, but thanks anyway. --(WT-en) Inas 20:02, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I am sorry but that was a big insult to me. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 20:25, 14 January 2009 (EST).
  • I'd like to echo Inas here. I've been watching this play out from the sidelines and have seen some terrible damage inflicted on Wikivoyage as a result of all this. I'm just glad that Peter and Cacahuate, who really took the brunt of this, haven't been punished or disgraced for doing their duties. Peter, I hope you feel better after your wikibreak and you come back strong, because you're one of the very best we have and I can't imagine Wikivoyage without you. EE, I'm sorry, but you really do need this break. You need to relax, let go of all this emotional stuff, learn to think before you write, and just let the healing begin. You'd be doing everyone, especially yourself, a very big favor. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 02:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Well I am very angry at this whole situation because everyone who I thought respected my side really doesn't. Not to make it a personal whatever and not to bring it all again, but thanks for showing your true colours. You'd know If I was Talking about you. I will be sure to stay away from you if I return and ask no favours or advice and you guys are real real jerks for leading me on like this. Thanks. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:28, 15 January 2009 (EST).

Time

Has anyone considered a different length for the ban? Instead like 10 days, 20 days, 7 days, 2 months, 1 and a half months, 14 days, 36 days, 40 days, 50 days, 56 days, etc.? --ee.

Rest assured, if 30 days isn't enough, there's plenty more in store. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)
And what about less ... ?
Well - what if it was less? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:29, 15 January 2009 (EST) .

K I wanted to bump this because it really seems the only undecided thing. Someone just brought up 1 month, and everyone stuck with it. What if it was something different? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 21:35, 15 January 2009 (EST).

Community consensus is that one month is fine, so this is not up for debate. As I type this, you have a little over two hours left to accept the voluntary break. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:39, 15 January 2009 (EST)
My goodness - you don't need the harsh tone attached. I just thought I would bring it up, okay? Where am I supposed accept this retarded thing? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 21:44, 15 January 2009 (EST).
Anywhere you like. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:32, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Blocked

I just blocked the user. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 02:16, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Shared?

Just a note that EE has been active at shared since his block, and has requested that all his image contributions be deleted. I think the block should apply there as well, anyone disagree? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:24, 17 January 2009 (EST)

No objections from my part. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 13:56, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Doesn't Shared have its own ban procedures? (WT-en) LtPowers 17:00, 18 January 2009 (EST)
I don't think current policy covers this case. You are right that this conversation should really be taking place on Shared, but certainly what EE is doing over there is a direct continuation of what he was doing here, and affects the English version just as much. How can we give him a blank slate over there and wait until he causes the inevitable offenses over there before taking action? I think at the very least the ruckus he caused over here is admissible evidence, and I think banning someone who is already banned on another version should really require, by policy, no more than the agreement of two admins, which we already have. (WT-en) Texugo 18:22, 18 January 2009 (EST)
→ Talk:User ban nominations – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 12:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

This guy has been making repeated edits to Oslo, USA and Russia with completely unhelpful and even insulting views. He/she obviously has no intent whatsoever to contribute maturely to Wikivoyage and I think that he needs stopping before he continues to edit without consequences. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 (talk • contribs) .


  • Oppose. Excluding bots, it is a point of pride here that we use user bans extremely rarely, and I don't think this ip is enough of a problem (not even close) to merit a user ban. The policy governing the use of blocks is here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:26, 31 March 2009 (EDT)


I've already created and then slushed a ban nomination for this fellow, but I wanted to revisit one idea from that nomination. Next time we catch this ip in a string of its usual unreformed edits that violate all sorts of policies throughout the Project:Manual of style, can we temp block the ip for 4 hours to try and get the user's attention? If there are objections, please bring them up within three days or anytime after that before the ip strikes again, otherwise I'll take the absence of objections as license to try this out next time. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:33, 4 February 2009 (EST)

  • Support. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:54, 4 February 2009 (EST)
  • So it looks like this guy edited about 10 different pages today, three on Saturday, one 30 days ago, and his next previous appearance was over 1.5 months ago. This doesn't seem like a huge amount of problem edits to me. Is there a reason why this can't be dealt with by an admin just visiting the user's contributions page, and clicking on every available rollback link? Maybe I'm missing something, but to me it would seem a lot easier and marginally more friendly to just mass-rollback any contributions he makes until he learns about our policies. (WT-en) JYolkowski 20:20, 4 February 2009 (EST)
    • and some of the edits appear sorta, maybe, okay, maybe? --(WT-en) Inas 06:15, 5 February 2009 (EST)
      • We've tried mass-reverting and gotten no response, no indication that any sort of message is getting through. We would prefer to be able to keep this user's edits by convincing him or her to make edits that comply with policy, but we can't do so to someone who is completely non-communicative. I believe Peter intends the short-term block to be another method of trying to get the user's attention, not just a way to avoid having to revert (which is a blasted pain, I must add, due to the volume.) (WT-en) LtPowers 09:02, 5 February 2009 (EST)
  • Support but only until you can revise the edits to detout them, or 1 hour at most. In my mind it might be better that rather than reverting the edits you detout and list the places, unless that is an impossible task, which I don't think it is. You could at least list the hotels, etc. being touting for and then revert only the touted bits. If it is a script then updating the edits will reveal the fact as the updates will get reverted when the new edit is posted. In fact the last edit didn't seem too toutish to me at all. I would suggest just removing the text between the <sleep ...> and </sleep> tags. I would also suggest you rewrite all the rather abusive messages posted on the user talk page with a decent welcome to a business owner. We want the information this guy is listing but not his touting. Reverting his edits, just means he will post again. Reform his edits to show him what is acceptable, and he may just think twice. - (WT-en) Huttite 09:38, 5 February 2009 (EST)
    • That's been tried, too. When I first found his edits, I removed the touting but left the listings. It's very labor-intensive. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:57, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Yes, the point of this block is definitely not to save time on reverting or anything like that—reverting this ip's edits is quite easy in my opinion. But it seems a shame to waste both our time and the user's, when having a discussion could possibly put this matter to rest. Edits made by this ip are rife with problems, not just touting. Listings (even existing ones) are mangled per our Project:Manual of style, moved out of order, placed in the wrong cities/districts, etc. All this makes me quite suspicious that the ip is simply running an unapproved script created by some hotel company. If the user does not respond to a block placed right in the middle of his activity, that would help confirm whether we are dealing with a human. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:12, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Back today, I've de-touted a couple, and rolled back the rest. --(WT-en) Inas 19:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I see he was back again today. I'm not necessarily saying that I support a block, but if the decision is made to block, could I request that the blocking admin put some thought into a detailed, polite, assuming-good-faith block message? Perhaps something like "Hi there, sorry for interrupting your editing. We've made several attempts to contact you in the past (see the my talk link at the top of the page) but you haven't responded or altered your behaviour. This led us to think that possibly there isn't a real person making your edits, but rather an automated 'bot', which is prohibited. Could you please read your talk page and the linked policies. Your block will expire in a few hours. We would welcome further contributions after your block expires if you make efforts to follow our policies". Thanks, (WT-en) JYolkowski 16:51, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I do not think this is simply a script. It appears to be a human trying to correct listings we keep reverting. The business brand LXR Luxury Resorts is associated with some websites I have looked at from these listings. This suggests that whatever we do he will keep coming back until the listings meet his perceived needs. Simply, reverting won't make him go away. Getting it right will. We need to persuade him what is right. So contact is needed. (The user probably isn't even aware he needs to read his talk page.) - (WT-en) Huttite 14:59, 7 February 2009 (EST)
So I have put up a typical Welcome Business Owner message and a Block message per above suggestion. Have a look at it and adjust it if needed, and the user is ready to be blocked. Meantime, I would suggest adding an attention-seeking comment into every hotel listing this user has made, so he will want to edit again and correct it. Then he will see an in-yer-face html comment asking him to read his talk page. A script will probably ignore the comments, a human???? - (WT-en) Huttite 05:42, 8 February 2009 (EST)

This nomination has become very muddled. So to make things simple: barring objections before 10 February 2009, or otherwise before a block takes place, we'll be ok to temp block this ip while it is editing in an attempt to get it's attention. And I think James' suggested block message looks good. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:27, 6 February 2009 (EST)

No objections since the purpose is simply to get the user's attention and not to prevent him/her from editing. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:06, 7 February 2009 (EST)
No objection for the purpose of obtaining a response. - (WT-en) Huttite 14:59, 7 February 2009 (EST)
No objection, agree with (WT-en) Huttite. --(WT-en) Inas 17:50, 8 February 2009 (EST)

For future reference, I did eventually implement this block , and it appears to have been very effective in resolving the problem (especially considering how nothing else had worked). I've noticed this "tactic" employed effectively on separate occasions—blocks as short as 10 minutes—so it appears that this was somewhat of a precedent setter. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:10, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Support Several deletions of Haiti article and aggressive behaviour. I assume a spambot. Don't want to speedy it because maybe it's just a persistant jerk. (WT-en) jan 07:19, 3 March 2010 (EST)
I would like to note to some points, that are mentioned as for the current opposition. 1. User is already blocked twice for 24 hours because immediately after the block ended he started to vandalise again that's also the reason he could do only four edits. 2. Nrms stated it might be a student but the incidents happened during CET luchtime which is pretty early for the US east coast... 3. User Ohh what now is acting in a team with User:(WT-en) Hambobway and i doubt that we will educate them to a normal behaviour. Just have a look at the history of Haiti 4. It's very unfair for all the other users that can't edit the vandalised pages due to protection because just a jerk is going around. I know the ban is a last resort but let's see today at lunchtime what the user will do. (WT-en) jan 02:38, 4 March 2010 (EST)
  • Oppose. Just revert him silently and he'll go away. Four edits in three days is not unmanageable. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:43, 3 March 2010 (EST)
  • Oppose. Four edits only. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:06, 3 March 2010 (EST)
  • Just for information, I am 99% certain it's not a spambot. I was around when the edits happened, and the incident was started by another user was was joined by someone from an IP address which resolves as a router for the airport.k12.mi.us group of schools and some other users. They all appeared to be together in a class at one of the schools given the text of the conversation that was going on between them - they were using the page as a primitive chatroom. I would be tempted to support the ban as I can't really see that the user will grow up and be of any use to us; but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if he forgets he set up the account or just creates another if we do ban him. (WT-en) Nrms 11:17, 3 March 2010 (EST)
  • Not being useful to us is not a reason for banning. I sometimes wish it were, but it isn't.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:20, 3 March 2010 (EST)
Just to add, User:(WT-en) Hambobway is the one who started everything (and perhaps should also be banned if this one is accepted), and the IP address concerned is 207.190.162.254 Also just noticed that our other user had tried to do this again today, which I assume triggered the nomination. If these kids are our future, the world is doomed! (WT-en) Nrms 11:24, 3 March 2010 (EST)
  • Oppose. Nothing here that we can't handle with simple reverts. Per Project:How to handle unwanted edits, blocks are a last resort tool. If the vandalism was very high volume, a discretionary temp block or protection might make sense, but this is quite low volume and mundane. We shouldn't block spambots on suspicion—we should be quite certain when blocking them (and there are only 2–3 patterns that our known spambot community follows, so they are easy to identify). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:21, 3 March 2010 (EST)

This user is intentionally replacing the correct URLs of various Thai resorts with links pointing to a scammer site. Example:

I told him off at his Talk page, he sent me a totally disingenous mail pleading innocence, and immediately did it again: ...

I've given him a last warning, but if this persists, it's block time. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:05, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Not saying that a user ban wouldn't be unjustified - but adding the sites to the spam filter may be a longer term fix, and may make sure others don't do the same thing. The site names would be confusing if you didn't see the initial edit. --(WT-en) inas 00:15, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
Inas, are you saying that a user ban would be unjustified? Or am I misreading your negations? Anyway, this user seems to be operating otherwise in good faith, aside from the URLs. I would support adding the sites to the spam filter if they follow a consistent format. If that's not possible, perhaps a short block to get his attention, as we've tried before? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:27, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
I was avoiding trying to saying whether or not a userban would or would not be justified or otherwise, and just raise the issue of the spam list being preferable. I'm not unapologetic about the confusion. --(WT-en) inas 19:14, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Don't support. We've already got his attention, and it doesn't seem like he intends to change his behavior. As I understand it, he's adding lots of different links, so blacklisting might not be useful. But can't we just revert his changes? There aren't that many of them, and I'm happy to pitch in and just revert him on sight. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:59, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Has been repeatedly removing the taxi services of competitors on the Coimbatore, Ooty and Chennai pages. Has been warned on the talk page and he did it again. The problem is that he is over 30 days old and his edits show up as autopatrolled on my watchlist and I may miss his edits. If we ban him, he will probably continue to do IP edits, but those will get our attention. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 08:43, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Support, at least for a short term "hey! read your talk page!" ban (not more than a week). I've also tried cleaning up after the Coimbatore edit warring periodically, and if there was a URL involved, it would've gone on the spam blacklist weeks ago. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 13:19, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
  • This only really has the effect of forcing the user to create another account, so their edits will not be auto-patrolled for next 30 days. Unless we are willing to ban the IP, and then ban the new account etc. I support a short term ban, long enough to get his attention. Perhaps for auto-patrolled users we need to have a Project:Mischievous users list. So, we have a list of auto-confirmed users that who's edits can be checked regularly. I know some people have their own private lists already. --(WT-en) inas 22:58, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Rather not. I'd prefer to avoid going past a "discretionary" temp ban (1 day or less), and have tried to disrupt his edits tonight with a block to get him to read his talk page. Hopefully this will put the matter to rest before we need to resort to a multi-day ban. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:03, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Comment. This user clearly knows the story now. No need for further discussion, I would say that we can assume his edits are in bad faith from now on, and we just revert them on sight. I know several people are monitoring, so surely he will realise how ineffective it all is soon. --(WT-en) inas 05:12, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

I've 24hr blocked this user who persists in touting and does not communicate. -- (WT-en) Colin Jensen 02:04, 29 November 2009 (EST)

I'm listing this IP address here per the Project:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban policy ("Only the most short-term temporary bans (one day or less) are exempt from the user ban nominations process"). User:(WT-en) Jc8136 blocked this IP for one month based on the fact that the user has appeared nearly daily and been blocked 8 times thus far. While I'd prefer shorter bans (our typical policy is to escalate slowly) I'll defer to Jc8136's judgment. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:32, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

  • Don't support. Is there any precedent or policy for a one month ban? --(WT-en) inas 18:39, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
    Per policy, one objection is enough to remove a ban, so I've removed this one. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 09:45, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Hi! This anon user is active since January 2010 on Wikivoyage and solely focussed on the Talk section of the Swiss, Austrian and South Tyrol Talk section. He was reverted by pretty much every active admin in the last four months due to his non-compliant additions. Even at Wikipedia there is a ongoing discussion on how to define Swiss German because it is only an oral dialect and is not codified. This is why German is the offical language. Lately this user started to insult me, e.g. F-CK YOU!!! I'm Zürcher and there's no bloody way that you say Züridütsch. Are you Bernese what the h-ll? That's where you say "dütsch" or F-CK YOU!!! You know nothing! How dare you insult my language like that? It's called Züritüütsch and will always be called Züritüütsch. F-cking Bernese today. (WT-en) Andy tried to calm down the user but this was unheard. I would like to ban this user as insults, shouting and edit warring are absolute nogos and no offer to find consensus was even considered. I blocked the anon now and would like to reach a conclusion before the block ends. In the pub was non support so now i push things forward. I nominate this user for a one month ban (WT-en) jan 07:25, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Comment. Although the users behaviour has been bad, I really would like to avoid a user ban if we can. I think the next step should be for the person to be warned that they could be subject to a one month ban if they are abusive, or continue edit-warring without reaching agreement on the talk page. If we conclude this, it should probably be done by another user/admin previously uninvolved (happy to volunteer if required). I think when disputes over facts like this occur, we are best to just go with wikipedia. They have the mechanisms there to arbitrate facts, which we really don't. We can just send the user to wikipedia, and when the article there is updated, we can reflect that here. I also don't think the current ban for 1 week is supportable. There is not the high level of editing such that we can't manage the reversion, and it is fair IMO that the user gets the opportunity to see the process. --(WT-en) inas 19:21, 10 May 2010 (EDT)
Inas, thank you for reverting. (WT-en) Andy already started to find a discussion starter but so far we had no reaction from the anon user. Please feel free to join this effort but in the Switzerland talk page there is already a long discussion about it and Burmeseday tried to restart this discussion, too. I'm fine to unblock him if you write him a message what he should do first. (WT-en) jan 01:35, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
Okay. I've put a warning on the user page, and I'll unblock the user. Cross your fingers. --(WT-en) inas 03:07, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
Is he now editing from 90.233.191.186 or is that another language geek? (WT-en) Andyfarrell 03:35, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
Inas, thank you for your trial. Andy, i left a polite note on the user page of 90.233.191.186 in case it is the same user. (WT-en) jan 04:07, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
User has finally registered under User talk:(WT-en) Killerduh and started to communicate with me. (WT-en) jan 05:24, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Oppose. Bans are our last resort tool, only to be employed when all else has failed. We've only actually instituted one multi-day ban of an actual user in the history of the website, and was employed only after trying just about every form of engagement from just about every regular user for nearly half a year. This case seems like it could be handled pretty easily via our tried-and-true "revert and ignore until he goes away" practice. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:45, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Unacceptable usernames

,

hyperlinked to "avoid acknowledgment"

These two were blocked indefinitely in October 2008 without a nomination, which goes against the letter of policy, but I think they should remain indefinitely blocked per Wikivoyage_talk:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits#Permanent_bans. Both are pretty vulgar; the latter also reeks of cyberbullying. Thoughts? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:26, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

GringoRent A Car

Hello I am requesting the following be banned for obvious reasons and I am being blamed by for these posts. Please forgive me if I have entered this in the wrong spot as I am a computer dummy.

Thanks (WT-en) MustSee 20:22, 17 October 2010 (EDT)

It looks like these are cases where some users want to warn readers about GringoRent A Car. This looks like a content dispute, not simple vandalism. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:43, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

Hi Lt. I didn't realize that "content dispute" was accepted on wikivoyage. This poster has removed/altered GRC many times one adding "This reference will be removed every time it is re-inserted". Is this permitted?http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Margarita_Island&diff=1552036&oldid=1550745 I appoligize for asking that the poster be banned if what has been done is acceptable to wikivoyage. (WT-en) MustSee 17:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

I didn't say it was acceptable, but there's a lot of space between "acceptable" and "ban". This should be discussed first on Talk:Margarita Island, for example. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:38, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

Hi Lt, Please forgive me if I have entered this in the wrong spot as I am a computer dummy. ;-) Thanks, (WT-en) MustSee 18:38, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

You were already forgiven the first time you requested that. (WT-en) LtPowers 07:16, 19 October 2010 (EDT)

I've blocked this hotel marketer for three days, and per policy am placing the ban notice here. This user is responsible for some of the more egregious SEO violations on our site (see for what is probably the worst example I've ever seen on this site) and has never responded to the myriad messages left on his/her talk page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:33, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

I've sent the following email to Marriott, although it was sent to their general contact address so I'm not sure if it will get the necessary attention:

Hello,

I am an administrator of the wikivoyage.org web site, the web's largest open travel web site. For several months we have been fighting Marriott hotel spam from an SEO marketing company based out of Mumbai, India (IP address 120.72.90.34) that has thus far refused to abide by our site policies and has led to discussions about blacklisting all Marriott hotels from the wikivoyage.org site.

We would greatly appreciate it if the appropriate marketing contact within the Marriott organization could be made aware of this problem and put a stop to it. The primary URL at which general comments can be left on our site is http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Pub. Thank you.

Ryan Holliday
Wikivoyage.org Administrator

-- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:56, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
Barring objections I'd like to continue blocking this marketer for periods of multiple days - in the two months he/she has been spamming us, every single edit gets reverted almost immediately so it's a waste of time for us and the user in question to continue allowing these edits to Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:51, 25 June 2010 (EDT)
I assume the block expired, because this one is active again. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:45, 26 July 2010 (EDT)
I had to set the eighth block for this marketeer as Ryan's block expired. I blocked him for a week, that why i leave this notice here per our policy. (WT-en) jan 05:24, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
Didn't take him long to start up again. I'll go block him for two weeks this time. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:30, 13 August 2010 (EDT)
I think we need to think a bit more longterm because the spammer is not impressed with one or two weeks. I think three months like spambots should be approriate after ten blocks. (WT-en) jan 09:45, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

Today this user earned his 10th block for touting. I blocked him for a month for all the obvious reasons. I tried to start a discussion on the talk page but so far no one responded. (WT-en) jan 07:33, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

The endurance of this editor is amazing. Exactly one hour after the one month block ended, he/she started again. It's the 11th block and i know block this IP for three month like a spambot. (WT-en) jan 03:32, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Amazing 12th block for this IP! I start to admire his/her endurance. Just hours after the last three months block ended, Peter had to revert and today i did. I reinstalled a new three month block and ask, if we need to think more longterm? (WT-en) jan 04:42, 6 January 2011 (EST)
This IP address is back after more than fourteen blocks. I've applied a three month block given this IP's incredible persistence. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:41, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

I blocked this user for a week and per policy am placing a note here. This is the tenth block applied to this IP address. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:31, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

The multipage West Bengal protection detailed here is designed to see if these spammers move on after a full two week block. But this goal is compromised by the fact that they have two auto-confirmed accounts. I would like to block these two accounts for the remaining duration of the aforementioned page protection. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:05, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Support. This user(s) has made a mess of the page and refuses to engage in dialog - I say block away. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:10, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Comment: Blocking them would make identifying them harder, as they are likely operating as anon users also. After a very quick look at Shankarpur revision history, I think 122.173.185.37 is highly likely the same user with this/these one/s. I remember seeing other IPs showing a very similar behaviour as well. Maybe we should block these as well? – (WT-en) Vidimian 13:23, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
From Digha's revision history:
These IPs show very similiar behaviour with the edits by users proposed to be blocked here. There are still more IPs just at Digha's revision history that made not as much, but still quite similar edits. – (WT-en) Vidimian 13:39, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
Support. Whoops, I somehow forgot to take into consideration the fact that the pages in question are already protected against non-auto-confirmed edits when I was typing above, so I vote for block. – (WT-en) Vidimian 16:41, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

I have blocked them for a period corresponding to the protection. If anyone disagrees, we can lift the block. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:12, 27 September 2010 (EDT)


The same reason as the above two: this is an autoconfirmed account being used to circumvent the current protection. I have set the block to correspond to the period of protection. If anyone objects, I will happily lift the block. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:05, 3 October 2010 (EDT)

All of the West Bengal phone number spammers

Unsavory "hotel bookers" have for the past four years plagued Mandarmani, Digha, Bakkhali, Sundarbans National Park, and other West Bengal articles by switching actual hotel phone numbers for their own. They have done so the with astonishing persistence, and the volume in recent months has been so high that their dummy numbers have spent about as much time in the articles as the real numbers—they seem to be as diligent as our janitorial staff.

Our latest, more severe tactic was to protect all these articles for two weeks to see if that would discourage and drive off the touts/vandals, but they have persisted even throughout the protection period by either using autoconfirmed accounts or by spamming talk pages and other unprotected articles. I don't think the protection is generating long term success, and it could be blocking legitimate new users from contributing.

I'm proposing that we apply our spambot rule to these spammers, when clearly identified, to see if blocks can bring a true end to the problem. (I don't believe, however, that these are bots.) That basic rule is 3 months for the first clear offense, and then escalating 2x blocks for each repeat offense past the original block period. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:29, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

Would it be acceptable to start with one month bans, and then increment to 3 months (and so forth) for further violations? A three month ban is a long time, and it might be a dangerous precedent to begin allowing multiple-month blocks on real users, even if in this case it's probably warranted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:47, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
Absolutely. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:09, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

Sadly, no sooner have the protections ended than we have 12 ips/users adding in the same junk again. I have blocked them all for one month, and we'll see what happens. If anyone disagrees with this procedure, please speak up, then I will remove the blocks and we can discuss how to move forward. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:27, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

No worse offence on WT then deliberately misleading travellers for personal gain. Plain old vandalism comes way down the list. --(WT-en) inas 16:59, 12 January 2011 (EST)

I'm actually a little surprised to see that this tack has helped. The spamdals are still around, but their work has slowed to a mere trickle. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:41, 15 February 2011 (EST)

I wonder if this is why I'm not able to edit and add high commission/embassy listings to Kolkata. I later tried New Delhi and found the same. All of my URLs are from the country's gov't site. Some listings existed before I started to work on the subsection, so I guess it's possible some of the ph #'s may not be legit but even so, they already existed on the article so...anyone able to fill me in? (WT-en) Zepppep 17:41, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
Both fixed. When the blacklist triggers the pattern that triggered it is always shown at the top of the screen. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:49, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

This IP has never made an edit that is acceptable under the SEO guidelines and returns on a near-daily basis to add new listings, despite numerous talk page messages pointing to appropriate Wikivoyage guidelines. After numerous 24 hour blocks I've now blocked the address for a month to avoid wasting more time and am listing here per policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:07, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Recent Spambots

Recently two spambots have been hitting the site and creating user accounts, and then creating topics of the form "SEO Term- How to do something", or "SEO Term" and then uploading two supporting images for that term. Per policy a spambot user account is subject to permanent block, but we're generally pretty cautious with such blocks, so I've been leaving messages on the user pages such as User talk:(WT-en) Lifeinsuranceplans. That said, these seem like pretty easy patterns to identify. Since in 30 days these accounts will be able to make auto-patrolled edits, would anyone object to permanently blocking this particular bot as it appears? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:15, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

New work of suspected spambot - User:(WT-en) Creditcardscomparison -- see also -- Credit Card- How To Build Good Credit Habits and associated image uploads Image:333.jpg and Image:444.jpg. I have applied a {{vfd}} to this article and associated 2 images as I am unable to delete them myself. I have also listed on the deletions page. I am sure you would like to deal with the user account concerned as I see you have been following the activities closely. -- Keep on sending them home to their mothers Ryan. cheers -- (WT-en) felix 00:56, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

This smart indian spammer is bringing is to a new level of SEO and dt violation. It acts like a spambot, refuses any contact and i wouldn't be surprised if some script supports it. I proposed a three months ban due to the similarities with a spambot but it is human. Currently some anon IP's are running high on blocks (couple of them reach or crossed 10th block) and have a huge track record on their talkpage. Any opinions? (WT-en) jan 09:59, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

This user has consistently placed ads for escort/prostitute services on his user talk page. Another appeared today despite a very obvious warning message. The sites have been black-listed but no doubt there are more. I am not sure if it is enough to blacklist the urls or whether a temporary user ban in order? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:57, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

As the one who deleted the latest pimping, I second the ban nomination. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 12:04, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
I haven't actually made that nomination :), as I know that is a serious step. Rather, for an infringement of this nature, I am asking whether other folks think a temporary ban nomination is in order or whether the blacklisting is sufficient :). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:14, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
This account's contributions look very spambotty to me. That said, it's only posted two urls. As blocks are the last resort (aside from obvious spambots), lets blacklist the urls first. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:47, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

Policy allows for blocks of increasing length, but since this one has gotten up to a month I'm listing it here. This user has ignored all messages on User talk:62.28.47.46 and continues to add multiple listings that aren't appropriate per the SEO guidelines. The user is now on his 13th block, and following the guidance of using slowly increasing block lengths the current block is up to one month. If anyone objects to this block it can easily be removed, but otherwise I'd suggest that until this user either responds on his talk page that he has read the SEO guidance or else begins contributing constructively, continuing to block this user after problem contributions is the best solution. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Per policy this IP has been banned for increasing lengths of time (currently three months) due to repeated vandalism here, on shared:, and (for what it's worth) the IP has also been troublesome and banned on Wikipedia and Meta:. Listing here per policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:07, 28 November 2011 (EST)

I'd make the observation that this may well be our first user ban of a significant duration for a non-spambot. I think our soft security advocates must be in hiding. --(WT-en) Inas 17:10, 28 November 2011 (EST)
I'm fairly certain that there are also some hotel marketers that have hit the 3 month limit. I'm happy to reduce the duration, but as I understand the "increasing ban length" policy, once a user has been blocked more than a half dozen times then a duration of a month or more would not be unreasonable. I've been an advocate of soft security in the past, but at the same time six years of experience on wikis has caused me to reconsider whether spending any amount of time dealing with obvious trolls and vandals is in any way worthwhile. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:45, 28 November 2011 (EST)
Well, if so they don't seem to have been noted here, as I think policy would require. Personally I don't have a problem with this userban, but I also do notice the change from a time where have no user bans was badge of honor for WT. --(WT-en) Inas 21:54, 28 November 2011 (EST)
Special:Contributions/120.72.90.34 is on this nomination page and was given a three month block, so there's at least one past precedent. As to soft security, User:(WT-en) Evan and User:(WT-en) Mark were both huge proponents of not using blocks or page protection in Wikivoyage's early days, to the point where we would sometimes spend (literally) hours reverting and re-reverting a single user's vandalism. While the idea was noble and made sense when many at Wikipedia were over-eager to block people for experimenting, it reflected a time when trolling and vandalism weren't nearly as prevalent, and was done at the expense of chasing away some admins who didn't want to spend their time babysitting. Today I think we do a decent job of striking a balance between encouraging new users and not forcing admins and patrollers into jobs that they shouldn't have to be doing, even if the lack of blocks and page protections is no longer something Wikivoyage can brag about. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:27, 28 November 2011 (EST)
I'm very tempted to say that this ip is not enough of a significant problem to warrant a block greater than 1 day. I understood the cascading blocks to apply only to spambots (starting at 3 months and doubling from there on). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:15, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Another hotel marketer who has ignored all pointers to Project:Don't tout. Blocked for the tenth time today (for one week), and listed here per policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:55, 21 December 2011 (EST)

216.66.128.0/18

A user utilizing numerous addresses from this IP range (Toronto area) has been repeatedly vandalizing the site over the past three days. Per policy any block longer than 24 hours should be listed on this page, and with the latest block of one week I'm doing so. Also note that this same IP range was blocked for a month on Wikipedia - WikiPedia:Special:GlobalBlockList/216.66.168.191 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:39, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

User is back after almost exactly one week, so blocking again for a week. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:24, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
IB has disabled the ability to implement a range block, so this nomination is no longer relevant. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:53, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
We turned that off (was supposed to be temporary -- hours -- to investigate performance problems); I have just had tech re-enable it, so should be good to go now.--(WT-en) IBobi 14:18, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
Thanks (WT-en) IBobi. I've blocked this range again for a week due to multiple visits per day over the past week resulting in hundreds of pages that had to either be reverted or deleted. Also worth noting is that the range is again blocked on Wikipedia: WikiPedia:Special:GlobalBlockList/216.66.168.191. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:14, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
I've also applied an infinite block to this user's various registered accounts under the "Doppelganger" guideline of the Project:How to handle unwanted edits policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:23, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
Sorry to be out of touch with this user, but I'm just checking that the names were impersonations of other users? The Doppelganger guideline does not pertain to sock puppets, which we actually allow. That might be worth revisiting, but just sayin'. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:03, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
If a high-volume vandal creates a half dozen accounts and uses them solely for the purposes of vandalism it seems silly to leave them active, just as we wouldn't leave spambot accounts active. That said, I'm not up-to-speed on whatever the correct terminology of a single user having an army of different accounts, so if the doppelganger rationale is not justified would this be something that needs a policy change proposal? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
I had the same thought as Peter; doppelganger accounts are those created to impersonate another user, like User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgera1d or something. But I couldn't figure out what accounts belonged to this IP so I didn't say anything. =) (WT-en) LtPowers 20:10, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
User is back again, blocked for another week. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:29, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
Side note, but this block should apply to 216.66.128.0 thru 216.66.191.255 if my math is right. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:41, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
User back again, blocked this time for two weeks. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:26, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
Blocked again for two weeks. Almost exactly at the expiration of the last block 20+ doppelganger accounts were registered here and on shared, which seems strangely coincidental. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:12, 14 May 2012 (EDT)
You mean sockpuppets, right?  ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:01, 14 May 2012 (EDT)
This time I think I got the terminology right - the accounts were almost all of the form ".Wrh2"  :) -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:44, 14 May 2012 (EDT)
That's... kinda creepy. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:46, 14 May 2012 (EDT)
Blocked again for a month. I also assume the 20+ "Ikan Kekek" doppelgangers created here and on shared were from the same user. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:28, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
Exactly one month after the expiration of the last block 20+ "Wrh2" doppelgangers were created here and on shared, and I'm receiving "your password was reset" emails from IP 216.66.188.111, so I'm blocking this range for two months. See where the range has been repeatedly blocked on Wikipedia as well. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:33, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

I blocked this anon IP to get his attention because he/she creates loads of skeletons. My aim is to get his attention. (WT-en) Jc8136 10:59, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

I tried several shortterm blocks (15 mins to 2 hours) but no reaction. The user recognises the ban and starts about an hour after the ban again. Also he/she starts with political edits about Kashmir and Punjab that likely is a source for edit warring between Indian and Pakistani users. Any objection and i shorten the ban. (WT-en) Jc8136 16:27, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
I've shortened the most recent block - while the user continues to create questionable articles, I don't think the contributions are malicious and have concerns about a lengthy block for what may be good-faith edits. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:02, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
Ryan, the editor started just again, therefore i reinstalled the one week ban. We tried every way to get the attention of this user and even though he might be in good-faith it will end with political disputes. The user focuses on the sensitive area of Kashmir and when i see statements like indian administered Kashmir it will only take days until some indian user will start to edit warring. I patrol Pakistan articles for quite some time and it always ends nasty. His userpage is full of encouragement but somehow he/she doesn't take that chance. (WT-en) Jc8136 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
This user's behavior is puzzling, but I am also worried that a week long ban is too harsh for what appear to be good-faith, if thoroughly misguided efforts. Actually, I would be of the opinion that it would be too severe for dealing with all but the most persistent of bad faith edits, as bans are "an extreme last resort," and an "embarassing... 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." Let's also remember that our ban policy requires the agreement of three admins to apply blocks longer than one day, aside from the specific exceptions enumerated there.
I'm back from the party, and will be happy to help with reverting this user's edits, until (hopefully) he gets bored and moves on. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:09, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
Peter, great to have you back. I think the same user has tried to work under another anon IP User talk:2.96.61.173 and that shows he/she knows his/her efforts are not in compliance with our policy. I will not call it bad faith but Pakistan seems to attract some attention from people that try to push through its ideas without the community. (WT-en) Jc8136 03:04, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations/Archive_2005-2012&oldid=4919567"