Wikivoyage:User ban nominations

User bans are put into practical effect by using a Mediawiki software feature to block edits to any page (not 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

166.137.208.*

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

• Support - the edit warring needs to stop. –sumone10154^(talk) 01:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose... sort of. I don't think we need any sort of long-term block for this ip range (long term range blocks should be exceedingly rare, for truly extreme cases like the IB fiasco. This edit warring vandal isn't too exotic, and short term range blocks should be fine—my longest one so far has been 6 hours. It seems I'm the only one instating them, so in my absence, please copy my range block, admins. --Peter ^Talk 02:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Short-term blocks on trolls are fine and blocking IB's addresses at least until all lawsuits are settled seems sensible. However, blocking this range seems to me a very bad idea. There could be significant collateral damage, blocking other users in the same range, and it won't necessarily stop a troll; all they need do is use a proxy. We should not block proxies; they may be the only way for users in some countries to read or edit. Pashley (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for reference: open proxies are globally locked on sight by stewards. For users editing from dictatorial countries we use to give out global IP-block exempt on request, these requests can be made on meta with ease since meta is not affected by global blocks. So, don't care of proxies and Internet censorship, or better, don't care of them as a single community but rather together with the whole Wikimedia's community. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. While collateral damage is likely with such a range-block, I feel as though this range's contributions are not useful to the project, and we would be better off without them. Do not block indefinitely, but for a long period (1 year perhaps). This, that and the other (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This range appears to include 166.137.208.* and 166.137.209.*, based on additional IP's in the block which were trolling after the original nomination was made as 166.137.208.* K7L (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's go with short blocks for awhile rather than possibly blocking innocent users. Would reconsider if it becomes a long-term problem. -- Cjensen (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I have confirmation that this range is being used for block evasion. While I am very leery of long-term range blocks, I have taken the unusual step of blocking for a month for the launch. I left ip talk pages unblocked. Ditto --Peter ^Talk 20:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. For the reasons outlined by Peter --Inas (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• comment - I ran a check on my own via checkuser and I found no legit anon-users in the whole /23, so any block for anons within that range is supposed to have no side-effects. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Other IPs

During the RfC on meta we had these IPs opposing:

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

Not sure if they would be related to IB but I assume so. [1] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

They aren't. They belong to the same ISP though. MER-C (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are they related at all to the IPs causing issues in the pub? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

24.whatever is usually a cable modem (that block was the former @home.com) while 166.137.208.* and 166.137.209.* appear to be Cingular/AT&T mobile 'phones. It's possible that someone is using a mobile device to troll after already being blocked on another address, but the IP's won't be the same block as these are different providers. K7L (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reasons given in previous section. Pashley (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I took a look with my magic glasses here and on meta and I found nothing interesting. So, I'd suggest to avoid preventive blocks which will likely have no results at all. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - have any of these IPs edited Wikivoyage? If not, I don't see the reason to block them. –sumone10154^(talk) 20:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose concerned they may be dynamic. --Rschen7754 21:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:John Daker

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

Also has been blocked for 2 days hours as a temporary measure. --Rschen7754 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The account has been locked by m:User:Vituzzu, but I'd like to leave this up so that all of his socks will fall under the ban. --Rschen7754 21:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For us WVers, could you explain what a lock means? Does that basically amount to a global block? --Peter ^Talk 21:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A lock is performed by a m:Steward. It is a global block, but even worse: he can't even log in. --Rschen7754 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

An account lock is a 'toggle' placed on an account by a steward on meta that prevents the user to log on into the affected global account. It has some peculiar characteristis that differentiate it from a true global block: it is indefinite in duration (that is, it has no autoexpiry), it does not block the underlaying IPs, it prevents the user from accessing the account in any way (hence no API, no emails, no talk page, not even just reading with his settings; he is forcefully logged out and receives a fairly obscure - I always forget if that got fixed - message preventing him from logging back it). Currently Wikimedia has no true global block for accounts, only for IPs. Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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

So, what, we just have to leave this up here forever? Once he's blocked, his socks can be blocked without further discussion. LtPowers (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

He was never blocked locally; the account was locked on Meta. --Rschen7754 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, banned, locked; same effect. LtPowers (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. Those are three different conditions, tools and effects. A block is a technical tool in the power of administrators for disabling a user's ability to edit. In its normal settings, it allows the user to still discuss on their talk page (such as asking for clarifications, saying it might be a mistake, or saying they would not do so again) and applies an auto-block on the user's underlying IP. A ban is a community decision to disallow the user from editing on the project with any account or IP. It is implemented by administrators thru block, and it is generally reserved for established contributors, where community input is required. A lock is a technical tool available to Stewards thru meta that disable a user's login access (see above for its implications). It is used only in the direst and less collateral damage-prone of cases as it does not allow the user to appeal their sanction easily, nor are they notified of the reasons of the lock. It also does not apply an autoblock. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say they were the same thing; I said they had the same effect, here, on Wikivoyage. We don't block people unless they're banned, and a lock is as good as a block in this case. Are you suggesting that we should also block him in addition to the global lock? LtPowers (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the big thing is the autoblock. Until there's CU data to globally block the IP, a block with autoblock is an effective local solution :) Say, you run across John Daker 2013. I'd say that the most effective thing would be yes, reporting to the stewards to get it locked, but at the same time it makes sense to block before with the autoblock, to at least slow down future socks. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, since we're currently violating local policy to block his socks as there is no local consensus for a ban, it would be nice to have a local ban. --Rschen7754 19:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say that if his account is locked globally, that is sufficient to constitute a de facto ban on Wikivoyage. LtPowers (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not in local policy. --Rschen7754 20:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It may not be encoded, since that facility wasn't available previously, but I think it's in line with existing practice. LtPowers (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, because the stewards make the determination as to who gets locked, not the local community. So you're accusing me of admin abuse for violating this policy, but now when I try to uphold it, you're endorsing a violation of this policy? What gives? --Rschen7754 21:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not accused anyone of admin abuse, certainly not you. LtPowers (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, then what would you consider [2]? --Rschen7754 22:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I was pointing out that Snowolf would be in violation of policy if he didn't do one of the two things I suggested. LtPowers (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I think we're moving towards a new policy of indef blocking accounts that are clearly made for the sole purpose of vandalism, and nominations won't be needed in the future for these types of blocks. --Peter ^Talk 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure I agree with Peter, but the reasons for this block appear convincing. --Inas (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I would like to emphasise that my support for a User ban in this extreme case is not a voice in support of changing the principle of getting community consensus for both bans and blocks of more than a short duration — in extremis, in arrears. If the cases are as egregious as this one, then that consensus should be very streamlined to obtain in practice. -- Alice^✉ 07:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Notice; I just indef-blocked a sock of this user who had made five edits comporting with the pattern described at w:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/John Daker. LtPowers (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Locked and found another sock, likewise locked. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  I also blocked User:Huff Daland Dusters, which was a latent sock obviously created a the same time. We'll need a checkuser to determine any other socks accounts. LtPowers (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  I had already locked and checked that account yeah. I have now locked all tagged previous accounts. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Tagged? LtPowers (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  Tagged on the English Wikipedia, that is. While the stewards have locked all known accounts and blocked as many past IPs as possible, I'm sure he will be back. --Rschen7754 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I am active on several wikis. On Citizendium, I have had to deal with users banned at WP for bias arriving at CZ, baggage and all, for more non-constructive viewpoint-laden editing, then emitting howls of protest when called on it. At Rational Wiki, I see drive-by trolls coming over from other sites, especially Conservapedia. As I see it, being able to quickly block cross-wiki vandals, spammers & trolls is yet another advantage of the move to WMF. We are already doing much better than WT at spam control, I think largely because of that. Pashley (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think cross-wiki vandals deserve a short stop. jan (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - There are several other users listed at w:en:WP:LTA that would also be considered banned from here too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/120.72.90.34

Per /Archive#Special:Contributions/120.72.90.34.

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

Big waster of our time. I think forever is not too long a time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Pashley (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Typically WMF sites don't indefinitely block any IP, since IPs can change hands, but a block of 1-2 years might seem appropriate for long-term abuse. --Rschen7754 17:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some instances of indefinite IP blocks, for example w:da:Wikipedia:Blokering af uregistrerede brugere fra danske grundskoler, which says that you may not edit Danish Wikipedia from certain Danish schools without logging in. However, I agree that it is problematic since IP addresses can change. It sounds better to set a temporary block which expires after a couple of years. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This IP address appears to be from a dynamic pool, so an indefinite block is probably not optimal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter has proposed updating policy to allow blocks of increasing lengths without the need for nomination for touts (after initial talk page warnings). If the last block of this IP was for three months, then a six month block, followed by a 9-12 month block, etc would seem reasonable. That ensures we don't permanently block an IP, but also saves us from having to have this discussion each time the IP re-appears. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Special:Contributions/195.194.14.6

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

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

Special:Contributions/203.219.242.183

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

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