Wikivoyage:User ban nominations

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

User bans are put into practical effect by using a Mediawiki software feature to block edits to any page (except pages in that banned user's user talk namespace) by the banned user.

Add nominations for user blocks to the list below, but please do so only after reviewing Project:How to handle unwanted edits. After a nomination has been made, the nominator is responsible for ensuring that appropriate notice is given on the allegedly delinquent User's Talk page of the nomination made here.

In general the preferred way of handling problem users is through the use of soft security. In the case of automated spam attacks the Project:Spam filter can also be a valuable tool for stopping unwanted edits.

For a history of older nominations see Project:User ban nominations/Archive.

Outstanding nominations[edit]

User:213.229.45.94[edit]

This user is in a somewhat similar category to the Telstra vandal, except that what it does is post hotel listings without price and content, often in state-level articles, and has consistently ignored edit summaries and user talk page posts (see User talk:213.229.45.94), and has already been blocked for 2 hours and then 1 day. I propose to block this account for 3 days this time, or whatever the usual period under the progressively longer ban is (1 week?). I fully expect to need to repeat this for a longer period of time after the suspension is over. Do I have agreement? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC

Agree. I am tired of drive-by editors. Seligne (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If I had to guess, this is a hotel marketer. Let's deal with the situation accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Accordingly with how long a block? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:12.217.57.100[edit]

Nicholas just undid some vandalism by this user. Aside from one useful edit in 2011, all that has come from this IP (a school in Florida) is vandalism. Here's the history. All of their edits has been about Hitler and Disney in one form or another so it's likely that it's the same person. That IP already has a remarkably ugly track record, and for their edits on WP they've earned themselves a heap of blocks as well.

The last block here was 6 months and it was their fourth. Should it be infinite this time? (also, I think we should have some Razzie kind of "negative" barnstars to give to persistent vandals like this :P) ϒpsilon (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I vote for permanent block. Seligne (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Per policy, and as a general rule, we should never permanently block an IP. Keep using escalating blocks - if the last one was six months, block it for a year. If Wikipedia applies a longer block then we can copy that per the "Blocks... on other Wikimedia projects" guideline on Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree - a 6/12 month block would be appropriate here. --Nick talk 16:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We should never indef block an IP; everyone should know that by now. And a "negative barnstar" flies directly in the face of the basic wiki principle of denying recognition. People would try to get such an award, and that's the last thing we need. Powers (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding negative barnstars, I believe Ypsi was being facetious. I share his frustration, though. Perhaps we should additionally contact school administration regarding the pattern of crosswiki long-term abuse that's come from their IP address. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah...when I realized the person(s) have been playing around on different wikis for over two years and apparently still think it's funny... Should we maybe for future reference put a note on their talk page similar to the one on the IP's talk page at the Simple English WP? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:1.120.178.160[edit]

See User talk:1.120.178.160, user contributions. User:ϒpsilon has traced this Telstra user to Brisbane. The user's behavior is not quite the same as we've seen before, but it's a little strange, and I was beginning to suspect without this kind of evidence that this might be our vandal again. If there is more agreement, we should block this IP. How long are we blocking the Telstra vandal now? 6 months? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
What URL are you proposing to block (by which I assume you mean blacklist)? Powers (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
No URL, just that IP. Sorry for the typo, which I just corrected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
24 hours has expired and he's back. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I will ban the user for 3 days now, but I'd like guidance: What is the amount of time we're banning these IPs now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower gave them a "three month sentence" the last time, I think. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. In that case, on the theory of ever-increasing lengths of suspension, I will increase the block length to 6 months for this IP. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:120.72.90.34[edit]

This user is an inveterate hotel marketer who never reads their user talk page or edit summaries. I'd like to see the last of them. The last block whose duration is noted was for 2 weeks, but there was a subsequent block (the user's 10th), which I'm guessing was for 1 month. So I propose a 3-month block. User contributions. In the meantime, I've imposed a 3-day block while I await approval for a longer term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Wow! That someone has been adding hotels to WT/WV for almost four years. The IP is from Ahmedabad, India and all of their edits have been to articles about US destinations. Either it's someone who travels a lot around the US but wants to add info just about the hotels he/she has stayed in, or more likely, it's someone who gets paid for touting. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
This IP has goofed and added listings for "General Manager" instead of a hotel name at least twice (once today). Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I see. It probably means that when all the rooms are booked, you can sleep in the general manager's private guestroom instead (happened to us at a small inn near Hamburg a few years back :)). ϒpsilon (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly high-volume marketing, is it? Is there a reason our usual soft security measures aren't sufficient in this case? Powers (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought this was written policy but I'm not finding it, but practice has always been that we warn marketers and then apply blocks of increasing length, so if the last block was for a month then a three month block makes sense, and I don't think a nomination is needed based on past examples. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
To reply to Powers: True that it's not very high-volume marketing, but this user is absolutely useless to this site, so their bursts of activity are a waste of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

[Undent] Is there any objection? I'd like to increase the length of the block before this IP comes back, but I am not convinced there's a consensus. Powers, do you have a strong objection to a long block for this IP, whose edits are completely useless, in my opinion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If I did, would it matter? Regardless, no, this has been going on for a long time so it's apparent the situation isn't going to change anytime soon. Powers (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it would matter. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wooeter[edit]

This is my first block, so I am checking whether this was OK here? Special:Contributions/Wooeter has been conducting some obscene vandalism and I have blocked for a day. Is a longer block appropriate? (I suggest 1 month) Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a rule that obvious "vandalism only"™ accounts should be indefblocked? (However, I'm not sure as I'm not an admin :)) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should be?
Anyway, agree that precedent by other admins against spambots would suggest an indefinite ban is appropriate. (i.e. only four total contributions, and each with excessive vandalism) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Replacing a travel article with an article about masturbation falls into the "obvious vandal" clause of Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban and is cause for an indefinite block of the account, with no nomination necessary. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)