Wikivoyage:User ban nominations

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.


This user refuses to act reasonably and argues over minor edits to high-profile articles. For example, at User talk:Ikan Kekek#Relevancy the user became increasingly angry over a minor edit and then became even more so at Talk:Asia. They accuse other users when it's not their fault, and, unfortunately, they've taken it too far. See also Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#Problem user. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I support an indefban as per my comments in the discussion linked above. Gizza (roam) 03:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
TC has also accused Ikan Kekek and SelfieCity of being vandals here Gizza (roam) 03:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning this. I have informed Ikan Kekek about this on his talk page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The procedure at Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks should be followed in this case, with the caveat that reforming the problem editor into a productive contributor (the stated goal of the escalating user block procedure) is almost certainly not going to happen, and the only probable outcomes are that the problem user is indefbanned or that s/he gets frustrated and leaves of his/her own accord. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Would a three-day block be the best choice now, then? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I would say so. Personally, I'm reluctant to immediately indefban anyone except obvious vandals. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll do it now --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that a 3-day block is unlikely to have much effect. I'd propose that if the user either evades the block or continues behaving the same way after the 3-day block elapses, we should ban the user permanently right away. Anything else is wasting time, IMO, given the attitude and behavior already repeatedly manifested by this user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
All the same, I'm concerned about the possibility of the pendulum swinging too far in the direction of a heavy-handed approach vis-à-vis vandals and other bad-faith editors, which is as problematic in its own way as handling them with kid gloves, as we did in the early days of the site. I share your pessimism about this user in particular, and I certainly don't think we should relent on the current approach to obvious vandals, but in general I think following the escalating user ban procedure by the book is a good way to avoid instant permabans becoming an entrenched habit that might one day be used against an editor that is reformable. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Very well, but at the very first sign of bad behavior, this user needs to get a longer block. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have been following on Wikivoyage and Wikipedia and the user has made no edits since December 5. Hopefully, no more action is needed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ban editing userspace pages?

(edit conflict) Considering how this user has been, this might be a good idea in this case. We've done this before, and I think this is a good example of a time when we should ban editing userspace so further disruptions do not occur from the user in question. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: you are proposing that users not be allowed to edit user pages other than their own, correct? (And presumably this ban would not extend to others' user talk pages?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
What I'm saying is this: if the user was banned, that they not be permitted to edit their own Wikivoyage userspace. However, your above comment says that a user ban should not be done yet, so that would make this section irrelevant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would support this only in the case of vandals indefbanned on sight - not editors blocked for a finite amount of time, nor those who were indefbanned as the final stage of the escalating user ban procedure. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This is fairly significant policy change - and should be proposed on the appropriate policy page - not here. --Inas (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Inas, that's not what I mean. I didn't say every vandal who is blocked should not be able to edit their talk page, just that in this case, that this user should not be allowed to edit their own user talk page and their user page. Only this user. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
But that would mean changing the policy in general. Because it's not allowed under the current policy. --Inas (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not disallowed under the current policy, either, and the consensus that the Fuerdai and BTCentralPlus vandals, and LibMod, should be denied access to their own user talk pages (note: this consensus predates our decision to avoid talking in detail about vandalism in publicly accessible fora, thus w:WP:BEANS doesn't apply to this statement) in practice covers most of the vandalism we see anymore. So this isn't as huge a sea change in policy as you make it out to be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd ask that you stop referencing policies on Wikipedia. We're a different place here, and those policies and essays don't always apply. And it doesn't matter whether it's a sea-change in policy or a small change - it should still be discussed on the policy page. --Inas (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
w:WP:DENY and w:WP:BEANS explicitly state that they are not policies on Wikipedia or anywhere else, but instead are general guidelines that are applicable to any wiki, and they've guided our approach to the latest vandalism outbreak for the past several months without controversy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Inas, please check the inbox of whatever email account is connected to your Wikivoyage account. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
So, if I write a WV policy and say it applies to all wikis? Please.. By all means be guided by whatever you like, but refer me to local policies and consensus. --Inas (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you arguing for giving maximum visibility to vandals, which is what they want? I'm confused. If it's really important to do so, let's have a discussion here. Who's in favor of denying recognition to vandals and not openly discussing ways to combat them on pages they can read? Say "Aye". Those opposed, say "No". I say "Aye". And those are summaries of the guidelines linked by Andre, wouldn't you agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
(By the way, when I say I'm confused, I mean that literally. Inas, I think you would know that I respect you a lot and appreciate all your work and considered thinking, so I just really don't understand what the problem is except that things were decided quickly while you weren't around. But what's your substantive objection to the outcome?) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Inas that WP policies should not be used here, and the fact that the linked pages are not policies doesn't make linking them more relevant. They may be useful, but the link should go from a local page giving context ("there is a discussion on the topic on wp:x; most points raised are relevant also here") or as a plain See also. Having that local page will not give more visibility to vandals than linking the WP policy.

I also think this kind of policy change should be documented. It could be mentioned on a page on revision deletion. Vandals must not be able to force us to use hidden policies. More detailed discussion and guidelines on practical matters can still be kept in admins-only fora.

--LPfi (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

WP policies and guidelines are absolutely relevant to our discussions. WP is a bigger community with a longer history and better developed policies and guidelines than WV. We should absolutely use WP policies as a guide for our policy and guideline development. I'm not saying that we have to follow them, or that we shouldn't develop policies and guidelines that are better suited to WV. I am saying that where we don't have our own policies, we should look to WP policies and guidelines as a starting point, rather than starting from scratch. No need to reinvent the wheel if the WP community has already invented a pretty good one that we can adapt to our own needs. Ground Zero (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely agree that WP can guide us. Bigger, more experienced, etc. In this case, I think we've grabbed a WP policy without examining if it is suitable. And I think we're being selective in applying it in a way it isn't applied on WP. And I strongly totally disagree with a private "admins only" forum for attacking vandalism. For a start, vandalism is everyone's battle - not just admins. And there aren't any admin only derived policies here. And as to Ikan Kekek's point that we should object to the method as long as the outcome is good. Well, I think the method is equally important. --Inas (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
If we share information on the details of vandalism filters publicly, and therefore with the vandals, we might as well stop using vandalism filters and delete them all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't accept that. I don't think most vandals go through all the filters deciding how they should vandalise. But even if I accept that view, its quite possible and necessary to keep discussions open and not have an admin-only forum and still have individual filters not exposed. I'm acutely aware of how previous episodes have utilised this openness to the disadvantage of the site. And my concern is more with the balance swinging too far the other way, and admins making decisions behind virtual closed doors. --Inas (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
w:WP:DENY has already been adapted into a formal guideline for Wikivoyage use. Your objections are duly noted, but consensus is not unanimity, and it's time to let this issue go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)