Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Older discussions



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

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


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

Range block of Internet Brands[edit]

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

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


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


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


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


This range is Cingular/AT&T Wireless and multiple anon-IP addresses in it are being used for trolling, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ 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[edit]

During the RfC on meta we had these IPs opposing:

  • - Los Angeles, CA
  • - Los Angeles, CA
  • - Reseda, CA (LA area)
  • - Irvine, CA (LA area)
  • - Placentia, CA (LA area)
  • - Santa Monica, CA (LA area)
  • - El Segundo, CA (LA area)

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

They aren't. They belong to the same ISP though. MER-C (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Are they related at all to the IPs causing issues in the pub? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
24.whatever is usually a cable modem (that block was the former 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[edit]

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

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

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

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


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)


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)


Per /Archive#Special:Contributions/

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)


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

User:W. Frank[edit]

Frank was already blocked on 7 Oct 2012 for causing drama with several users. His user page leaves rich traces of his defiance of our policies and the repect for this community. Several edit summaries e.g. and are prove for that.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Tony1 Part 2[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for that, AndreCarrotflower.

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

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

User:W. Frank Part 2[edit]

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, User ban nominations/Archive !

A Kiwi and Strawberry Pavlova to welcome you! NOT a self portrait!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length of suspension[edit]

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

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

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

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

Votes for ban of any length:

Support Oppose Abstain
Ikan Kekek for X days

Proposal to close[edit]

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

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

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

Moving forward[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Nominate this IP for ban because of clear vandalism: Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:118.93nzp and associated IP addresses[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for action[edit]

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

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


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

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

Telstra vandal[edit]

User: etc.[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:, User:‎ et al.[edit]

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

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

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

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

User: et al.[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

I'm particularly concerned that:

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abuse Filter for Anonymous Australian Telstra IP[edit]

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

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


The anonymous banned Australian Telstra user is back. Please ban before they change too much. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked by Ikan. I hope this helps demonstrate the tenacity of this user. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
User: seems to be the same user. I've checked the edits but haven't blocked yet for those edits don't merit that enough yet (for me, anyways). We should keep an eye on it though. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's them. You can block them on the basis that they are evading the block they have been given. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. Folks: please, please, please immediately block any anonymous IPs confirmed to be editing in this pattern. Don't wait for them to violate copyright or anything else that "merits" intervention; block evasion is a blockable offense in and of itself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I do understand your frustration, Andre :-) However, I haven't really been involved in this before, didn't have much time to read up and preferred a second opinion. Especially since blocking on sight goes largely unnoticed, I do think (in general) anyone who is in doubt should feel most free to post here and get a colleagues' eye on it. For the record, looking back just superficially through the edit histories of those ip's I don't yet see a pattern of real copyright violations, as the content is too general for that. The main problem seems to be the empty headers and the frustration of non-response. Anyways, Ikan has blocked this ip now too, so all is well for now. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
They appear to have little or no knowledge about the places they are editing. I think it is concerning they are just adding listings of places that sometimes do not exist.. it goes against our mission. That is not to say WV must be 100% correct in every edit by every user, however contributors should be acting in good faith at least that the information provided is accurate. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Only one edit so far, although I'm sure the next few will prove this is our anonymous Telstra user. Please block on the basis that they are evading an existing block. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Will block as soon as a pattern is satisfactorily established, though I'm sure that's just a formality. Are we or aren't we going to do this AbuseFilter thing? We're wasting precious time here, as far as I can tell. I'd do it myself if I had the technical expertise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Understood. I felt the block discussion was sort of stalling so I wanted to give it a few days. Will comment now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on the filter, though it would be helpful to have a few admins learn how to write them as well so that I'm not the only one who knows how to work it, along with my responsibilities on other Wikimedia sites. With that being said, perhaps we should consider a blanket rollbacking of all the edits from such IPs, rather than checking to see if each edit is valid? --Rschen7754 08:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for my impatience, I had no idea that it was in the works. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Our Telstra user is back, and the spam filter has successfully tagged their first two edits. It will be interesting to see how many of their edits it will tag. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, for the record. It's looking good so far, even without the edit summary bit. If all goes well I might increase the actions to "warn", requiring the user to make an extra click and bypass a warning before the edit saves. --Rschen7754 06:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, because I have zero technical expertise on the subject: what exactly happens, currently, when the filter is tripped? The edit goes through but is flagged for later review by an admin? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It depends on the setting. You can tag the edit only (and allow it to save), warn the user before allowing it to save, or disallow the edit entirely. --Rschen7754 06:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe crank it up to 'warn' and see if they can work out how to click through? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm concerned that without the edit-summary criterion we'll be catching non-vandals from those IPs. Also, shouldn't the tag say "Telstra" instead of "telnet"? Powers (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Added the edit summary part, will leave it for a few more days before upping the action. --Rschen7754 07:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Have any more IPs been blocked? There have not been that many hits on the filter. --Rschen7754 00:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This vandal tends to make short bursts of edits and then go dormant for a while. Hopefully the explanation is that and not that the vandal has learned how to bypass the filter (witness this account, banned as another manifestation of the Telstra vandal despite the fact that he never tripped the filter; now he's removing, rather than adding, random bits of meaningless text). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Curious, I thought the edit for Lubuskie would have tripped the filter at least. Perhaps the filter does not look for net removal of content? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I did change the filter to include that, but after those edits were made. --Rschen7754 00:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
They are back under user: Seems filter still not catching. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Please ban as per above. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Rschen7754 03:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I frankly don't understand why we don't just set the filter up to catch all anonymous edits from Telstra IP's. The vast majority of those edits, if not all of them, come from this vandal, and furthermore, the filter doesn't block the posts but only flags them for administrative review. Other than the flag on the edit summary which they may or may not ever read, there's not even any indication to editors who trip the filter that their edits are treated differently than normal. We can even set the tag to remove any references to vandalism (e.g. "tag: Telstra" rather than "tag: possible Telstra vandal") in order to avoid offending those few innocuous users who read the edit summaries and feel they were falsely accused. Obviously if we increase the settings to "warn" or "disallow" we can tighten the parameters again to guard against false positives, but as it is now, I don't understand why we insist on making this process harder for ourselves than it needs to be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Unfortunately I suspect the Telstra user is back. They have only made two edits (one translation of a city's name and one 'History' heading with no content).

The edits didn't trip the spam filter, so I'll take a look at that.

To be clear, I don't believe 2 edits are sufficient proof to block right now, although I think this will become clear after a few more. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Added the new Telstra range to the spam filter - same tagging as before Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
After some more edits it became obvious it was same user. Blocked for 3 months. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I changed the criteria for the Abuse filter slightly. It now no longer looks for bullet points (*) as a prerequisite. (Thereby catching today's edits) Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Symantec user[edit]


Looks like the filter didn't catch this one. Look at this typical edit. I'm blocking the IP, but note that it got through the filter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks suspiciously the same.
The reason it got through the filter is because it uses a different (Australian) ISP and not Telstra.
The IP address is designated as 'ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE' so hopefully that means they won't be able to get around your block and a range filter can be avoided. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
If the user continues to IP-hop, perhaps we should expand the filter's dragnet to include all Australian IP addresses? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The interesting thing about the new edit is that it appears to come from the Australian branch of the British company Symantec. As far as I can tell they do not operate as a public ISP, therefore it may not be too far fetched to suggest that this user is an employee, or has access to a laptop belonging to an employee.
Interesting to see from which IP the edits will come next. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, looking closer at the contribution history here, I'm not 100% sure this is the work of the IP vandal. From what I can tell, the edit pattern is similar in some ways but not an exact match: like the IP vandal, the Symantec user's edits are short and there seems to be no geographical pattern to the articles he edits, but Symantec appears more concerned with adding demographic facts and figures about the places' populations than with copypasting random trivia from other websites like the vandal does. Plus, where are the pointless one-word attraction listings and the long lists of redlinks?
But then again, Symantec's edit history isn't long enough to disprove anything, and he is located in Australia after all.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Andre is right.. is seems quite possible, but this is not necessarily the Telstra user. I could have added this kind of information in my first years of IP editing. I'm tempted to say we should err on the side of caution and not let our frustrations get in the way of fair judgement, even if our "benefit of the doubts" are disappointed a couple of times. I would prefer to unblock him and see what happens, maybe even see if they respond on a talk page message. It's just a click to block them again if we can confirm it's the problematic user. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking maybe we should of held off the block a bit longer to see if the 'completely pointless' edits reappeared. Maybe we can let them run just a bit longer?
The Australian IP Vandal has done 'People' edits of a similar nature before, although I have to agree that we can't be 100% with the limited sample of Symantec. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Unblock the IP if you like, then watch their edits like a hawk. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
To Andrewssi2
"The Australian IP Vandal has done 'People' edits of a similar nature before"
True enough, but there's a pattern of only People edits inherent in Symantec's admittedly small contribution history, unlike the IP vandal whose addition of such subject matter is occasional and seems incidental to whatever his main goal is. If I were a betting man, I'd say this is not the IP vandal, though I'm on board with watching Symantec's behavior in the future; the edits are borderline problematic in the same way as the IP vandal's.
Perhaps the next step is to look for copyright violations in the user's previous edits (seems doubtful after reading them over), or to try to engage the user on his talk page (perhaps more promising if this is indeed a different user).
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I will not have too much capacity to 'watch like a hawk' next few days, however I agree to unblock and see what happens.
Additionally, can we agree to only block the IP Vandal for the moment if their suspected edits come from the Telsra ISP? (Just use Whois) Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Since no more comments, I will take it upon myself to unblock this user now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This looks like some sort of cloud computing system, actually... see [18]. We may want to consider blocking the entire range (possibly at a global level) and then tell people to use their home system when editing, as there are few legitimate reasons to be editing from a virtual private server. --Rschen7754 08:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I am recording Symantic's edits below. This is because we are not sure that it is the same as our Telstra user who has been blocked and some more patterns would be helpful to compare them.
You are correct, it is possible they are using this cloud service to evade the ban. It should be said that these 'cloud' edits seem pretty sporadic at the moment. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


Symantec user is back! Their edits are not particularly helpful (and give the impression of being copied from sort of reference material), however they are not quite like the Telstra user yet.

I think we can leave them to edit a bit more and see what happens. This is just a heads up at this point. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I copied the previous welcome message from JuliasTravels to their talk page Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Just for the record of their editing history, another edit from Symantec . No ban proposal at this point. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

While Symantec's edits are not terribly helpful, I think at this point the user has established a pretty consistent pattern of not falling on the wrong side of policy. Accordingly, I don't think it's necessary anymore to monitor the his edits here. In case he runs afoul of policy in future, I'm confident that it will be discovered through our monitoring of the Recent Changes log - we generally give a bit more scrutiny to anonymous contributors when doing so - and we can then take the case up again. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with you. They did seem somewhat similar at first (both coming from Australia, both adding short content that wasn't very useful) but the general pattern of the edits does seem very different and as you say fits accepted policy.
I'm OK to close and archive this case. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What about User:[edit]

I've been pretty patient because most of the edits have been good, but I do think this is our vandal. Contributions, user talk page, with no response, Geolocate results. I think we should block this user but delete only selectively. They have not added content quickly, so I don't think it's imperative for any action to be taken before there is at least a second opinion. Thanks, folks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the same person to me, too. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I will block, then, for 3 months. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Symantec user[edit]

I think we agreed before that Symantec was probably not the same user as the Telstra vandal.

Edits and IP Trace.

I thought I would just record it here for now and see how they develop. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Andrewssi2. For now, I propose that we lift the ban and continue deleting selectively. But if Symantec's edits become numerous or problematic enough, I'd rather not close the door to other options of dealing with him or her. At this point I don't foresee that happening, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

November and December 2014[edit]

See Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive#Symantec user for previous background.

I'm posting here not to propose an immediate user ban, necessarily, but to once again bring up the idea that perhaps the Telstra user also uses Symantec on occasion. I don't think we should just tolerate this kind of edit by a user who never replies to his/her user talk page (see User talk: I will post another talk page message, but I believe it's time to start blocking this user (for a day, initially) if they continue to refuse to pay attention to attempts to communicate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the pointless subsection, I don't see a huge problem with the addition. Is it only because you suspect it's the same user as Telstra? Powers (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a pointless empty optional subtitle plus a bunch of names with no other information, and it is absolutely identical to problematic edits by the Telstra user. And this user is no more communicative than the Telstra user. Yes, I think this is the same user, and even if not, exhibits exactly the same behavior, and I warned him/her that s/he is likely to be blocked, initially for a day, if s/he posts no reply to his/her user talk page the next time s/he logs on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, Telstra seems to have given up trying to use their mobile connection for edits since the 24th November.
The edits of Symantec do look similar, and may be a response to the success of the Telstra filter above.
How about creating a new filter that will only track and tag for Symantec? Then we would have a better idea of the pattern. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to chime in late on this. These don't look anything like the edits that put the Symantec editor on our radar screen before - originally, the Symantec editor added demographic facts and figures to the "Understand" sections of various articles that was encyclopedic in tone and of dubious relevance to travellers, but not strictly in violation of policy. As well, he never engaged in copyvio or added long bullet-point lists of attractions or redlinked cities in "Go next". In short, this looks far more like the Telstra vandal's work, yet the IP address used belongs to Symantec, which perplexes me.
I'm not yet ready to conclude that the Telstra vandal and the Symantec user are one and the same - though IMO the possibility is much greater than before. I'd say use the usual ban procedures for now, until a longer pattern of Telstra vandal-like edits from Symantec IPs is established. If and when that happens, let's add the Symantec IP ranges to the Telstra vandal filter.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I have a very different memory of the previous edits than you do. I noticed the similarity very quickly, and it's very apparent now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The strange (and probably incorrect) demographic figures have indeed disappeared. All other edits look similar enough.
Although it can't be proven 100%, I would guess that Telstra was frustrated by no longer being able to edit and moved on to a fixed internet terminal somewhere else in Australia.
I will at least tag Symantec for now. Then at least we can have a good holistic view of their editing pattern. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I created a new filter just for this user. Please note that I named it 'MessageLabs' since that is the name of the ISP now.
The good news is that this ISP has a very easy IP range to catch (anything under 117.x.x.x).
Just to emphasize, this is just for tracking and tagging purposes for now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

[unindent]And we have our first real data from the tagging. This user made a bunch of edits. Many and perhaps most of them are somewhat helpful, but his/her edits to population stats for Iraq are quite dubious, as things have definitely changed since IS murdered thousands of non-Sunnis and loads of those who could escaped. Also, there were at least two instances of uncredited copypasta from Wikipedia. I posted a message to User talk:, the latest iteration of his/her user talk page. I don't expect a response but would love to get one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the latest edit for is copypasta from wikipedia for w:Guinea-Bissau
So basically this user is adding either dubious statistics or text copied from Wikipedia. I'm fairly confident they are Telstra.
Since they will not respond to messages asking them to refrain from these edits, what is the best course of action? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
As long as we have no way to fully prove any connection between these two accounts, the best thing would be to leave that issue aside. Fairly confident is not enough, searching for similarities takes a lot of time and in the end it doesn't even matter. Let's focus on the edits themselves. Even if it would be the Telstra user, it would seem that he or she is at least trying to change their game. That's a good thing. For me, considering that this was never a conventional vandal but rather a well-intending editor making unhelpful edits, it's not so terrible if their block-scheme starts from the start. If the behaviour is not changed enough (or it is a different user) we can just use the normal increasing times. It may cost us a few extra short time blocks, but it will save lots of discussion. Who created that "notice" again, making it impossible to edit unless a message was posted? That was a nice and fair solution. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't catch that copyvio. I'll delete the edit. It really wasn't helpful, anyway, as without any description, how would a visitor know what Tina and Tinga sound like? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the prevalence of copypasta from Wikipedia doesn't give me confidence that this user is trying to change their game. We can start with short blocks, but I think we'll have to have a longer block in pretty short order, except in the very unlikely event that this user responds to a user talk post. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I'm not optimistic either :-) It will however save us discussions about good faith and fairness and so on, so it seems the easier way. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The annoying part is that this user probably doesn't know anything about the "Tina and Tinga sound", and is just blindly copying bits and pieces.
Also This change to Femo was a particularly bad copy violation.
There have been no more edits for a few days. I would suggest a longer block if it happens again. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Unless someone else blocked this user, there have been no blocks so far, as after I posted the warning, the user has yet to return (to my knowledge). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Just as an update, the range of IPs I was looking for was too broad. I have restricted the range to between and Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I blocked who appears to be the same user, since they are adding unhelpful edits in rapid succession. I took the step to ban them for 2 hours.
Also if you look at the edits on Mali, it appears this is the same user as Telstra. They made similar edits.
Can we place a longer ban? Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. 1 day should be the minimum initial block. But if you ask me, I think we should do a range block as necessary, because this individual will never engage in a dialogue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason not to expand the range of IPs covered in the Telstra filter to also include Symantec. For my part, I think it's hardly relevant anymore whether the Telstra vandal and the Symantec vandal are the same or not. The edits are equally worthless, and the refusal to communicate is equally troubling, so there's no reason the same course of action shouldn't be applicable to both users. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I extended the ban to one day for now. I support adding the range block as per Ikan and Andre above. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It's only been a couple of weeks; how can we be sure we won't be catching any valid users in the rangeblock? Powers (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
User: is using a new Messagelabs (symatec) range. I blocked the user for a day and adding the range to the (tag) filter. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, is blocked for a year on Wikipedia, so per policy a longer block could be applied here if desired. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
OK great. Seems like a few blocked WP people decide that coming to WV is the next best thing that they can do.
I 'could' apply a longer block, however I fear that next time they wish to share their wisdom they will have moved onto a new IP address. :( --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


User Special:Contributions/ is a Telstra IP that is looking similar to the Telstra Vandal. I have just added this new Telstra IP range to the filter to see if we get any hits. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we have a match. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 months. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving this discussion?[edit]

I noticed that the discussion around this user has gone on a lot and is now somewhat redundant since consensus is to ban the user. Can we archive and move the strategy of blocking somewhere else? Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The rationale for keeping it here was that this is a better-trafficked page than any other place for which this discussion might be appropriate. The last thing that should happen is we lose steam before the vandal does. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
True... I guess we have been lucky in that no other discussions on this page have been required. I'll leave for now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It's been a month since we last spoke of moving this discussion, and it looks to me like at this point the Telstra vandal's activity has diminished to the point where it'd be safe to monitor the situation through the Recent Changes log (see also w:WP:DENY). Can we agree 1) to archive this discussion at long last, and 2) that Telstra vandal edits that don't trip the abuse filter merit an automatic 3-month ban, with the option to nominate individual IPs separately on this page if there's any doubt that it's the vandal or if caught by a user who doesn't have the admin tools at his own disposal? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It has got to the point where were a new user then we probably wouldn't even notice.
Although we can't know for sure, it would seem our strategy of constantly identifying and banning has dissuaded them from making many edits
Can we still leave a note on this page to link to the relevant archive discussion should they ever want to try again? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "should they ever want to try again"? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The previous pattern of behavior, which was rapidly adding irrelevant 'see' listings, empty headings and non-responsiveness (among others) Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I see. So I'm assuming you're asking if we should link to the archive discussion when making note of individual instances of Telstra vandalism on this page. I think in most instances it will be fine just to institute a 3-month block without consultation UNLESS 1) we're not sure if a particular edit is the work of the Telstra vandal, 2) the Telstra vandal suddenly becomes extremely active again (in which case we should probably open a centralized discussion similar to the one that's about to be archived), or 3) the user who discovers the vandalism isn't an admin and doesn't have access to the tools.
If we do make note of Telstra vandal activity on this page pursuant to the three conditions I listed, it would probably be useful to link to the archive discussion, especially the further into the future we get. However, most of the people who monitor this page are admins or frequent contributors who will likely know exactly what we're talking about when we refer to the Telstra vandal, so perhaps it's not absolutely essential to do so.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You're right. Not essential. I think you can proceed as you proposed. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Behaves like the Telstra vandal. Please remind me how to check a user's ISP; I forgot how to do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I usually use , which indicates that this user is from rather than Telstra, although I agree that the behavior indicates it is probably the same user. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
At the bottom of Special:Contributions there are links to many practical services for looking up stuff including geolocation for IP addresses. Many of the Telstra vandals' "contributions" have been from Brisbane, and the location for this IP is a place called Nambour which isn't far away from Brisbane. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
3-month block per our usual Telstra vandal procedure. Good looking out, Ikan. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


See User talk:, 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)


It's early yet, but Telstra, Brisbane, Australia, and the second edit certainly looks like our friend the Telstra vandal. We can await confirmation, but this would be a year-long block of an IP, and obviously, whoever this individual is, they aren't giving up. So is there any additional step we can take to save ourselves time on this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User contributions (only 2 so far). Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Now more contributions and clearly fits the pattern, so banned for a year, but what's the next step? We really shouldn't ignore the problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
While the user is annoying, it's going to be extremely tough to implement anything automated that doesn't trigger a lot of false positives, so I think our current approach of identifying IPs that seem to be problematic, checking to see if they originate in Australia (and Telstra in particular), and then blocking for 3-12 months may be the least bad option. Given that there has already been a successful ban nomination, new nominations shouldn't be needed - if you see an IP that you suspect is the same user, and the origin matches Australia and/or Telstra, apply a block and note in the log that it's the Telstra user. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
So the next block shouldn't be for, say, 2 years? We are not going to continue to increase the length of blocks? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
We normally apply increasing blocks when it's a registered account or the same user using a static IP address. If the user is using a dynamic IP address it doesn't seem like increasing the block length would have any effect, since the user's IP will change in a few weeks. As a result, a one year block will likely either have no effect or will potentially block someone else who is later assigned the same IP. Or am I misunderstanding? -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
No, you're not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Looking at their edits, I would say that they are becoming marginally more sophisticated (Which supports the theory that they do not speak English but are slowly learning).
I don't think a 2 year block is going to help, although blocking this new range for 3 months will do the trick for now.
I'll look at the Telstra spam filter again. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect to Ryan, if the long-discredited whack-a-mole method worked, we wouldn't be talking about Telstra vandals today. In my opinion, there would be no harm in expanding the filter to, for example, cover all anonymous edits from Telstra ranges (or, for that matter, all anonymous edits from Australian mobile carriers). Keep in mind that the filter does not block edits from going through, it just tags them for later review.
And if there are a lot of false positives - even if the vast majority of the hits were false positives - so what? Wikivoyage doesn't get such a huge volume of traffic that the admin in charge of the filter would be drowning in edits to review. For example, there were 40 anonymous edits recorded sitewide yesterday, May 6th - that's the total number, not just from Australian IPs. A perfectly manageable workload. And if the edits are tagged with something innocuous that doesn't mention vandalism - something like simply Tag: Telstra - anyone who's the victim of a false positive will likely not be offended or even pay any mind to the tag.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
False positives are fine for a tag-only filter; not so fine for an edit-preventing filter or a rangeblock, one of which I suspect is the "anything automated" that Ryan was referring to. Powers (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Very likely the Telstra person, just as the tag filter says. The individual's edits seem to have become slightly more useful, but I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Weird psychology - this one's obviously an English speaker like the Telstra vandal and with an eclectic geographical spread so there is certainly a very good pattern match. Rather depressing. -- Alice 12:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Nederland (Texas) matches the pattern of listing non helpful items. Yerrinbool is however a constructive edit even though it doesn't add considerable value. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
If the edits are caught by the filter and there's no reasonable reason to believe it's a false positive, just go ahead and ban the user; no need to ask permission here. Remember also that userban evasion is a bannable offense in and of itself; the presence or absence of constructive edits is irrelevant. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Another edit this morning, so blocked. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Sad how this Telstra user keeps going on and on and on with his edits and doesn't reply to the tens of comments on his talk pages and we then have to block him/her again. With such enthusiasm s/he could be a great contributor — if just the edits would be helpful. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Telstra. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

One-year ban. Again, the Telstra vandal is a block-on-sight situation. It's preferred that editors not clutter up this page with incidents of Telstra vandalism (w:WP:DENY) unless they suspect it's a false positive, which in this case it's clearly not. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, Ypsilon isn't an admin. Powers (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a surprise to me. Sorry about that, Ypsi. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, YPSI wrote on his user-page "I don't want to be an admin because I'm way too lazy" but I pretty sure he would be a good admin if he choose to become one day. --Saqib (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
ϒpsilon should reconsider his position on that subject :) He is always ready to highlight issues as soon as he sees them. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes YPSI. Please reconsider. Being an admin is not a laborious and tough job nor you'll have to start spending much time on WV. Don't forget we've many idle and quite inactive admins as well. --Saqib (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
No. I'm not really interested in administrative tasks or policies (nor familiar with them in detail either). Why not nominate the account discussed in the thread above? I believe they are definitely interested in such tasks and are for sure not going to get inactive anytime soon. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there a barnstar for funniest post I have seen recently? If so, Ypsilon should get it! Pashley (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Are we documenting blocks of the Telstra vandal here?[edit]

If so, User: was blocked for 1 month. User contributions; location. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And a new one: User:, User talk:, user contributions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New Telstra vandal incidences, July 2014[edit]

Our Telstra user is back, and is now often making useful small grammatical fixes. However examples such as this mean they need to be stopped. As previously agreed on this page I will block them and leave a message on their talk page. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

November 2014: Beefing Up the Abuse Filter[edit]

The Abuse filter has been working quite well since it began on January 10th, catching and tagging 315 edits by the anonymous user who uses dynamic IP addresses assigned by Telstra in Australia. In the past we have simply caught the user, left the usual message on their talk page, banned as per community agreement and undid their edits. They have unfortunately still been incessantly making edits, and the frequency has increased the past few weeks. May I propose adjusting the filter to block their edits for 1 month ? In addition I can leave an automated message when they try to edit:

Sorry, your move request could not be completed at this time. Your edit has triggered an automated filter that stops new editors from making certain kinds of page moves which are frequently used for vandalism. We apologize if your move was well intended. To complete this move please ask for assistance at the Travellers' pub.

I understand this will also block other unregistered users from the Telstra mobile network, although the abuse filter has not seemed to have caught any such user so far this year so I would say the risk is minimal. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I heartily approve of any step that will save time. This user has been wasting his/her time and the time of everyone who polices his/her edits, posts to his/her talk pages and manually blocks him/her. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have enabled the automatic warning and block. Since the user will now get a warning message directly they should not have any doubt that they are being blocked.
Since there is no way to set a time limit, I will remove this block myself on 14th December 2014. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I was late on this. To be clear, does this message mean that the Telstra vandal has graduated from mere unhelpful edits to page-move vandalism? If so, I had not been aware of that until now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to just disallow moves by new users, perhaps not until they get autoconfirm status? Or just disallow them for anonymous IPs? Would either be a good idea? Pashley (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It would certainly work in terms of preventing page-move vandalism across the board, but as I see it, one of the main selling points of the original proposal is the warning message Andrewssi2 spoke about, which may finally impress upon the vandal the consequences of his or her actions and may help lead to a cessation of all the problem edits. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The move was not prompted by any page moves (that I am aware of, the existing filter probably wouldn't catch those). It was an increase the the number of unhelpful edits by evading the IP block every single time.
Also to mention that the warning message above is the standard used by the Wikimedia software. I can make customisations if that would be appropriate. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually a big success already. The user tried 14 changes yesterday, each one was disallowed with a warning. No extra admin work required to see what they changed and undo.
Since they are unable to change anything on Wikivoyage now, they may just understand that there is an issue that they need to contact us about. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Great! Thank you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are we using the movewarning text instead of the standard edit warning text? Powers (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I preferred the language of the page-move message, but you are right in that it isn't accurate. I have changed to default. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The abusefilter-warning message isn't ideal either, as it implies the action can be carried out after the warning by resubmitting the edit. Also, I do note that there are some good (or at least neutral) edits being caught by the filter; is this intentional? Powers (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I saw there is an option to customize the message, and I can look at that. I wanted to avoid changing the existing messages by accident.
The user is banned also for block evasion. Therefore yes, catching 'good edits' (although I don't see any that add value) is intentional. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-telstra --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Just an update. The user tried three more pointless edits, each one attempted at 12 hour intervals from two different IP's. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC) (Telstra again)[edit]

The Telstra user is really persistent, now using another Australian internet provider (Dodo). Example here. I will ban for a day in order to prevent edits whilst a discussion can be had. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Question for Andrewssi2 or anyone else who might be keeping track of the Telstra abuse filter: Since we instituted the filter, how many false positives have been generated? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
All the attempted edits can be seen here (I think perhaps only Admins have access to this page)
I do monitor this at least every few days to ensure that no one other than the vandal is blocked. We do actually have one edit which I think on balance is a 'false positive'. A Telstra IP address tried to edit the user page of User:EurovisionNim with a link back to the user's Wikipedia page. EurovisionNim's editing pattern on both WV and WP does not seem to match the Telstra vandal. If it was EurovisionNim then they could have logged on to complete this edit. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Just as I suspected. The abuse filter has been in place for many months now and we have a grand total of one false positive, being an already-registered user who simply forgot to log in.
My favored course of action, then, would be to expand the filter to include all anonymous edits from Australian mobile networks, plus the Symantec range referenced above. If the filter has had what amounts to a 100% accuracy rate in catching vandalistic edits while leaving others alone, we can afford to widen the dragnet - especially since, without recourse to any other means of anonymous editing, the vandal will probably give up before too long.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually the only mobile network used so far has been Telstra. Messagelabs (Symantec) and Dodo are both broadband providers in Australia.
The pattern for the Telstra network has to been making a few edits every few days. The broadband connections tend to be more spreadout, such a a large number of edits every one or two weeks.
I would say we should keep the Telstra network filter edit ban active a bit longer since it appears to have dissuaded any edits from that channel quite successfully. I would ask to just track the Broadband providers for now until we have more data to prove there would be no false positives from those sources. We can still ban if the tagged edits are obvious and since we have already had an effect on this user's behavior there may even give up before too long. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I just want to thank you for your good work and say that I support you in whatever action you deem most appropriate going forward. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to update that this user is still trying to update. Every few hours they keep trying to add the same text to Luxembourg (city) : "It is regarded of being the most dramatically situate capital in Europe". (An observation that was already conveyed in the existing article with more colorful prose)
I now feel sorry for them since it really does appear they have no idea that they are being blocked, or that we are trying to contact them. ( I am leaving messages on their talk pages ). Any other ideas gratefully received. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Andrewssi2: It's the Wiki way, not to mention human nature, to assume good faith in situations like this. However, let's not forget that we've left literally dozens of talk page messages for this user, each one of which would have placed a garish orange bar at the top of his screen the next time he tried to edit, which reads "You have new messages". It's usually at that point when the user switches to a new IP address. It strains credulity to think that not one of those times was his curiosity piqued enough to click on that orange bar and that the IP address changes were mere coincidences.
What this user's motivations are is anyone's guess, but one thing I think is quite clear is that this user does know that the community disapproves of his editing style yet consciously chooses to continue anyway, without so much as even bothering to try to make contact with the community - either through edit summaries, responses to talk page messages, in the pub, or through any other method - to find out what our problem is. I think these edits are intentional vandalism and should be treated as such without equivocation.
As for how to proceed, our ideal course of action is best summed up by a quote from myself regarding an earlier iteration of Telstra vandalism: "we need to deny recognition to this vandal by not leaving talk page messages for him, however terse and sternly worded, and simply revert, block, ignore from here on out. To quote Wikipedia: 'The best way to dissuade [vandals] from vandalising is to convince them that vandalising is boring and has no impact on the community or the [project]' and 'when they are simply reverted and blocked without so much as the bat of an eyelash and everything continues on as usual, they will go elsewhere.'" This vandal may be extraordinarily persistent, but the principle, in my estimation, remains true.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the user is 'extraordinarily persistent'. :) They have not given up even though now the effort is a complete waste of time from their side.
We can persevere. Another month may do it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

[Unindent] Everyone, please look at this edit history and this Geolocate result. I feel sure this is the same user. But be that as it may, please monitor this user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the same user. They became very frustrated after multiple edit attempts that were blocked today. This edit from the new IP address and this blocked edit today from Telstra is identical.
It would suggest that they now understand they are blocked from using their mobile phone but unfortunately know they can get around it by using another provider.
I have blocked for now. It is definitely a ban evasion. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Also Ikan Kekek you were correct to say the Madagascar text should be in Wikipedia, except that the user actually copied it directly from WP to begin with! w:Madagascar
I'm going to add this range of Ip addresses to the 'warning filter'. As much as I'd like to block, it may just be that this user found themselves in front of a relatives' computer and went for it. I'll extend the block of that particular IP to 1 year. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Feature request to the programmers of Wiki software: it should be possible to show messages as fullscreen popups with red bold text on yellow background and some loud sound to select anonymous users whenever they've clicked Save page. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Something that's also worth pointing out is that the edits to Madagascar#People and Tanzania#People are very much in the style of the Symantec user. I think any doubts that they're the same user are gone by now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
ϒpsilon , the user has demonstrated through their edits that they know how to correct basic grammatical errors therefore I'm sure that that are aware of the existing warnings (Red message notification, personalised massage when blocked through Telstra network). Why they just don't talk to us is baffling, especially since they are obviously very keen to copy and paste content from WP directly into WV, but not sure what more we can do to make them engage. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually after they were banned from this new IP yesterday, they went back onto their Telstra connection and tried tho make those edits again. Really curious, but in any case our actions have succeeded making them very frustrated, and the cost to us to correct any edits that get through is very low. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agreed with Andrewssi2. As I've said numerous times already, the answer is revert, block, ignore. It should be obvious to anyone who's been following the saga thus far that the user is not operating in good faith, and to continue to attempt to engage him runs counter to the principle of denying recognition to vandals and ultimately will encourage more vandalism.
Furthermore, and this is something I want to emphasize: per w:WP:DENY, it's not even a good idea to get into protracted discussions about long-term vandals like Telstra on this page. From now on, unless there's a real necessity to do otherwise, let's please just revert and ban on sight without making any big fuss about it here.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
--See also v:Wikiversity:No shrines for vandals. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like the correct way forward AndreCarrotflower. With the minimum of fuss the strategy will be to A) continue to block anonymous edits from the Telstra network and B) Monitor edits from other Australian networks and add to the Waning filter if needed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User: - Telstra using a different network[edit]

I have been using Filter 19 to track and tag Telstra user's edits from other Australian networks. There have been no false positive matches.

Today's rapid edits suggest that they do not want to give up. Can I propose adjusting the filter to block this user's edits for 1 month ? I will of course continue to monitor for any false positive Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that based on the discussion yesterday about not giving undue attention to trolls and the like, perhaps we can propose a motion for you to be granted the authority to adjust the filter however you see fit. All in support say "Aye"; opposed, "Nay." I vote "Aye." Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm supportive of Ikan's proposal - Andrewssi2 has done an admirable job dealing with this user so far. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Done. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:118.93nzp and associated IP addresses (third block)[edit]

Nomination for a three month block, per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks, as this user has been blocked twice previously: Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive#User:118.93nzp, Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive#User:118.93nzp and associated IP addresses.

I won't re-state arguments made in the past two block nominations, but they remain relevant, and since there is no indication that behavior has or will change I'm nominating for a third block now. Evidence that behavior has not changed:

  • After being blocked for a failure to assume good faith and a lack of civility, user's first edit upon returning continued the same behavior ("I don't think any of your dividends are in too much danger while some of the movers and shakers here refuse to improve this site's search engine optimisation because they prefer to remain big fish in a small pond") [19].
  • The most recent edit indicates that the behavior that led to the past two blocks is likely to continue ("your curmudgeonly and luddite attitude to both better SEO and honouring registered readers wishes as to their thumbnail sizes" [20]).

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and disagreement and spirited debate is healthy, but this user's repeated assumptions/accusations of bad faith undermines a core principle of the site and has a serious negative effect on the project as a whole. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support as per above. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support reluctantly, as I find this whole process depressing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for the same reasons as always. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, for the (unsurprising) continuation of the same behavior which led to bans in the past. Texugo (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Special:Contributions/ was blocked as an apparent attempt at block evasion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

& Special:Contributions/ -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
You're barking up the wrong tree. -- 11:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
& Special:Contributions/ It's obviously impossible to confirm the identity of an anonymous user with 100% certainty, but the anonymous user(s) has made several very specific edits that only 118.93 made previously, so either it's the same user, or another user trying to copy the same style; in either case, the original block was for 118.93 and associated IPs. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Not to stir the pot, but I don't see a strong correlation; can you be more specific about which edits you feel are damning? Powers (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you honestly doubt that this new anon is both a) not 118.93 and b) not someone trying to impersonate 118.93? Regarding the edits that I saw as red flags, just as we keep some of the abuse filters hidden to prevent vandals from finding workarounds I'd rather not discuss this user's "tells" in public, but in addition to the obsession with time and date formatting, British spelling, and railing against the "old boy's club", there is one editing action in particular that I only ever recall seeing from Frank, Alice, and 118.93, and another that I only recall having seen from 118.93; this latest anon has made multiple edits that matched both of those patterns. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:HK britt[edit]

This user emerged from the ether immediately after the WT attribution footer was altered, making bogus complaints about copyright violations in an insulting and uncivil manner despite having no previous edit history. Needless to say, conventional wisdom identifies this user as a troll employed by Internet Brands, in which case Wikivoyage:No real world threats applies. Even if not, the user himself has made what could arguably be described as a legal threat, and has been warned already that his behavior may result in a userban but has continued to troll regardless.

Proposing indefban per nrwt.

  • Support per above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support though honestly, I do think that "accounts created solely to troll" should be allowed to skip the nomination process. --Rschen7754 01:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, and I agree with chen. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh didn't see this here, well, I guess we should just indef him until legal threats are retracted per standard policy. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, this user is obviously not working for the good of the site. Texugo (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, Do we have any method to determine if this is IBobi? Other than it being fairly obvious that it is. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    It's only obvious if you assume IBobi is the only person with an interest in disrupting our activities, which is, frankly, ridiculous. Even in the context of the dispute between the two sites, Paul's provocations remained civil and distinctly non-hysterical; this user has none of those hallmarks. The simplest explanation is that he is, in fact, an editor who (under one or two IP addresses) made significant contributions to the Longsheng article in 2009 and 2010, as he claimed. Powers (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, IBobi's provocations may have been non-hysterical, but I distinctly remember them to be anything but civil. Secondly, the idea that HK britt contributed to Wikitravel's Longsheng article anonymously is nothing but baseless conjecture. I think it's far more reasonable (given IBobi's past conduct as well as that of the anonymous IB trolling we dealt with around the time of the WMF launch which may or may not have been the work of Paul O'Brien) to assume that this user is an employee of Internet Brands. It bears remembering that Internet Brands is a company with many employees, and even if this user is not Paul himself, nrwt still applies as he would be editing on behalf of an organization that has made real-world threats. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes agree there are likely more people who wish to disrupt WV than Ibobi. And yes this could be one of them. With respect to this being an IP addresses wanting attribution for his IP address. I don't know. Seems a little far fetched. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
My point is that this user's histrionics do not in any way resemble anything we've seen from any IB employee in the past, particularly not IBobi. Powers (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Can we sweep this though? I prefer not to give these users more attention than the required amount that they get. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


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:, 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)


This user (contributions) has never posted anything useful. Until today, the user had restricted himself (or quite a lot less likely, herself) to posting contentless "listings" for hotels, often improperly in regional articles, and always completely ignores his/her talk page and edit summaries. Today, s/he's graduated to pimping. This is the user's second block (the first was for 1 days), so I will immediately suspend this account for 3 days, which I'm sure will be uncontroversial, and for whatever it's worth, I will note the reason in their talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The pimping is disturbing. You've tickled my curiosity; what makes you think it's probably a she?
It may well be that they have limited English. It is infuriating when no channel of communication seems to work, but the 15 or so edits I've inspected do seem to be good faith attempts to be helpful to travellers - some hotel entries have been properly geo-coded. Have you cross-checked to see the activity of this IP on the German language Wikivoyage? I'd be loathe for us to move too far from the wiki way of doing things? -- Alice 12:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


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)


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)


The usual pattern again: forum shopping the same tired old points about relative image sizing and SEO, ignoring or openly flouting multiple warnings on her talk page about the same. This is on top of the many, many, many warnings the user has received in past periods of activity.

We dragged our feet when Frank pulled the same shenanigans, which led to the resignation in disgust of two of our most trusted editors - one of whom has since returned, hopefully to stay. After that, we finally showed some spine when we banned 118 for the same infraction, three times. We've made progress in putting words to action when it comes to the relevant policies, so let's keep it up. Also noteworthy is that during the discussion regarding one of 118's first userban, we specifically resolved (q.v. Ikan Kekek's comment timestamped 07:37, 2 December 2013, and responses) to be wary of the reactivation of Alice and/or Frank's accounts and to be ready to decisively react, with a minimum of hemming and hawing, to their trademark problem behaviors should they recur.

Nothing in the previous paragraph is to be taken as an accusation of sockpuppetry. It is merely an acknowledgement of a similarity in the behavior patterns among several different (?) users.

Proposing three-day block per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify: You're suggesting a ban for forum-shopping? (And need I point out that raising a discussion in the Pub can't even reasonably be construed as forum-shopping?) Powers (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
This nomination is in response to a persistent pattern of uncivil behavior, of which forum shopping is a part. You know that as well as I do. Time and again, the Wikivoyage community has duly examined Alice's proposals, as well as nearly identical ones by others(?), regarding relative image sizing and SEO. And the fact that she (he? they?) has refused to accept the community's decision to not pursue those proposals has led to an ongoing campaign of haranguing and harassment that, when left unchecked in the past, has seriously disrupted the conduct of community governance and driven editors away from the project. In addition, Alice has been warned numerous times to stop engaging in this behavior (see relevant links in my nomination text) and has balked at those warnings. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of uncivil behavior. (Keep in mind that this is still not an accusation of sockpuppetry; on the slim chance that Alice is not one and the same person as Frank and 118, she can certainly still observe what has and has not been discussed and decided against, and what behavior has and has not been tolerated, in the past.)
And maybe it's technically not forum-shopping to introduce a proposal for SEO in the pub (though the usual procedure is to begin the discussion on the relevant policy page and post a pointer in the pub to it), but what happened at Wikivoyage:Star nominations definitely was. And, in a larger sense, the fact that after all that's happened with these three (?) problem editors we still have to beat back semantic hairsplitting, searches for loopholes and technicalities, and unwarranted assumption of good faith in userban nominations is not only patently unconstructive, but it actually plays directly into this user's MO. You and I both know full well what road we're starting down with Alice. Presently we have the benefit of a little wind at our backs after our success in dealing with 118, and the last thing we need to do is bring all our momentum to a halt.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
May I run the risk of correcting some facts?
I neither introduced nor re-introduced "a proposal for SEO" when I started the Pub section Our embarrassingly awful search engine optimisation.
Instead, I pointed out that, in south central Uganda, both Wikitravel and websites featuring short extracts from our own English language Kampala article came 1st and 3rd in search results respectively. Now there is an obvious inference to be drawn from the fact that the Wikivoyage HEBREW version comes 2nd and the ENGLISH version is nowhere to be seen on the first page of results - but I did not actually spell out that inference, other than in the title.
Now I think you need to be honest and admit that, despite your multiple protestations to the contrary, what irritates you is not my actual edits but the fact that both you and CJensen (and presumably others) find it deeply offensive and irritating that "the same gang of sockpuppets" are cocking a snook at you. There is very little that I can do about that. Obviously I'm in the unfortunate position of knowing exactly who I am and exactly who I'm not but I do understand that you (and others, some sadly departed or substantially inactive) do genuinely believe that there is a gang of sock puppets at work.
Please think this through. If you are right, what is to stop more new sock puppets popping up?
If you're wrong (and I'm obviously in the unfortunate position of knowing that you and others are in error) then I'm immodest enough to think that all you will have done is lost yet another positive contributor (please examine my actual record of several thousand edits).
Now I must concede that it is my opinion 118nzp started in a provocative way, deliberately aping many of my editing mannerisms and topics of interest. (I have to be careful what I write here, since I don't want to confuse and telescope what he has admitted in public and what he has clarified in emails to me). Presumably he was a WP pal of Tony having a laugh if I extrapolate between the lines more than I possibly should. However, I do detect that what may have started as trying to have some fun at your expense, changed as he gained interest in our travel guide. However, why should I be punished for the sins (real or imagined) of others?
I do agree that there is a social dimension to our activities and no editor should feel harassed but the definitive way to put an end to both "my gang" and their "shananigans" is to run check-user since I have edited within 3 months of many of those you accuse of being in "my gang". I suspect that you'll now put up all sorts of arguments as to why that can't be done, but if you do will that not just be because it's going to be a terrible loss of face when a properly conducted check-user definitively establishes that I have never edited from the same machines or localities as other editors? I am also still hopeful that Dr Heilman may meet personally with both Frank and I shortly and confirm that we are very distinct humans. -- Alice 18:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As much as you'd like to make it out to be so, the issue is not at all about whether you are/have a sockpuppet(s). The issue is that the behavior, whether from you or from 10 doppelgangers, is unrepentantly abrasive and disruptive, your "suggestions" are made in a provocative, reproving, insulting way and continually spread across as many pages as possible, your manner of responding to criticism betrays a complete disdain for the opinions of others, and no amount of pleading with you seems to have had any effect. The point is that rather than demonstrating regret, conciliation, or willingness to improve, you'd rather try to distract and divide by setting the actual problem behavior aside and writing an unrepentant, defensive tirade about unrelated sockpuppet allegations, like you've just written above. I was intending to abstain from this discussion until I saw your response. Now I am reminded of just how irritating and repetitive this can get. Texugo (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Here we go again, conflating my behaviour with that of "10 doppelgangers". Wow, and I thought that Singapore politicians were too thin skinned about constructive criticism. I'm sorry, but I just can not understand how pointing out some bad Ugandan search engine results can be characterised as "unrepentantly abrasive and disruptive" or "made in a provocative, reproving, insulting way". Unless you can provide recent diffs, I just don't recognise that the problem lies with me rather than the same bunch continually assuming bad faith and or sock puppetry. Heck, I was even blocked for not editing for 4 months between 24 June 2013 and 22 October 2013 on 1 October 2013.
Now don't get me wrong: I do sincerely believe that there is a huge reservoir of bile and venom crystallising around me. Otherwise, why is so much effort devoted to shooting the messenger rather than actually successfully increasing our readership? -- Alice 21:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Since you seem to want to misconstrue my words to mean the opposite, let me see if I can make this any clearer. It's your behavior that is the problem at issue here, regardless of where else that behavior may come from. There is no "reservoir of bile and venom crystallising" around you; the response you are getting here is entirely of your own creation, being strictly the result of your continual choices to disregard advice, denigrate those who disagree with you, and generally act superior to the rest of the community. I don't have time to pull out lots of diffs at the moment, but your behavior is very nicely summed up by Ryan below, along with a handy transcription of your most recent unkind comment about users who happen to disagree with you. Texugo (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, engaging in forum-shopping in a userban nomination where forum-shopping was one of the infractions at issue ("Otherwise, why is so much effort devoted to shooting the messenger rather than actually successfully increasing our readership?") is not a terribly good idea. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
So called forum shopping is a Wikipedia policy. Do we have such a policy or even a prior discussion of such an idea on Wikivoyage? Precise diffs, please.
Historically, we've used the Pub as a notice board. People that gather here tend to be a self-selected group of those who like to censor and ban people they disagree with rather than persuade by rational argument. -- Alice 23:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the statement "People that gather here... like to censor and ban people they disagree with rather than persuade by rational argument" perfectly encapsulates why this ban nomination has come about. As has been stated repeatedly here and on your talk page, it is your behavior, and not your opinions, that are the issue. Diversity of opinion is to be encouraged, but when you repeatedly dismiss the opinions of others by asserting they are acting in bad faith it poisons the discussion and undermines a core value that is essential for any wiki to function. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
To Alice's point about forum-shopping as WV policy, 118's userbans came about as a result of forum-shopping (for the same changes that you propose). The relevant discussions are at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive: #User:118.93nzp, #User:118.93nzp and associated IP addresses, and #User:118.93nzp and associated IP addresses (third block). Those aren't precise diffs, but they're good enough. The fact that the nominations were successful indicates that WP's distaste for forum-shopping carries over to WV in a way that can affect userbans. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Per the user's talk page it is very clear that a number of people have had disputes with this user over the years, ranging from edit warring to policy disputes to frustration with the user's copyediting choices. The broader issue seems to be that Alice often sees this project as a battle rather than a collaboration, and often fails to assume good faith - for example, repeatedly suggesting that the other side in an argument is not following Wikivoyage:The traveler comes first (thus suggesting that only Alice has the traveler's best interest at heart) or suggesting that opposition to proposals such as Wikivoyage talk:Search Expedition#Action points to boost our readership (which involved a proposal to change every URL, section heading, and opening paragraph in every article on the site based on a single user's "guarantee" that it would rocket Wikivoyage up search result rankings) is based on stubbornness and a desire to deny the proposer validation rather than legitimate concerns about the implementation and effectiveness of the proposal. Snarky comments such as "Ducks to avoid the traditional brickbats and defamatory accusations from those who wish to keep their lights firmly under bushels/ ignore the Elephant in the room/ shoot the messenger [21] only reinforce the view that Alice sees the site as a battle against those who don't have its best interest at heart.
Per Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun#Taking action, when attempts to address problem interaction via discussion have failed a 3 day block is a way to impress upon a user the serious nature of continuing behavior that upsets others, so a short block seems warranted in this case. If, after that short block, the user can contribute while accepting that people can disagree for legitimate reasons (and not simply because of personal animosity), that sometimes in case of disagreement it is best to drop an issue rather than continuing to push it at every opportunity, and that on a collaborative project it is important to recognize problem behavior and make an effort to minimize conflicts where possible, then most of my concerns would be addressed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per mine and Ryan's comments above. Texugo (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I do beleive Alice has valuable input for this site in terms of travel content and I hope that she will continue to do so after a ban, if it is so applied. I also hope that by now she would recognize her general approach to improve the site through SEO and thumbnail sizes is counterproductive, regardless of the merits of these proposals. Sometimes you can care about something too much. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above reasons. If Alice has a serious interest in the site, I would suggest s/he take Ryan's response to heart. The issues and complaints outlined above are self-created problems that can easily be resolved by making some self-adjustments. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - To quote Ikan's above-mentioned resolution on 118's first userban discussion: "If W. Frank or Alice start editing... at the first sign of trouble, I'd like to see an immediate 3-day ban without any long debate here". Given that we appear to have a broad consensus here, I'd like to proceed with the userban absent any eleventh-hour dissent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    I have concerns about feeding Alice's persecution complex by instituting a ban without the grossly abusive behavior we've seen in the past. We should be encouraging a gradual improvement in behavior; is it reasonable to expect perfection right off the bat? Powers (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll provide some eleventh-hour dissent. Granted, Alice can be irritating (though of course, so can various others) and in particular I wish she would shut up about upright=. I'm not certain that justifies a ban. Pashley (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
We're talking about a three-day ban here, Pashley, not an indefinite ban. It's a mild remedy, and at the point of a three-day ban the goal still has far more to do with rehabilitation than anything else. We want to impress upon Alice that we're serious about our need for her to be civil, but we need to do it in a way that goes beyond yet another talk page message for her to brush off. After three days have passed she'll be free to edit again, and if she chooses to do so in a civil and collegial spirit, she'll be welcome to stay at Wikivoyage.
To Powers' comment, working on a collaborative project like this one sometimes requires a thick skin, and frankly we've bent over backwards trying to find a way to work with Alice in the past. At some point you run out of patience and someone else's unwarranted persecution complex stops mattering. In my view, the choice Alice has to make is a simple one: either be cooperative or not. But when it comes to avoiding a userban, the time for "one more chance" talk has passed.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
We need to resolve this nomination. While not unanimous, it appears clear that there is enough support to instigate a 3 day ban (4 support, one dissent). Seeing as I supported the ban I do not want to be the one to apply it lest there be concerns about conflicts, but it is past time to reach some sort of closure as it is not good to leave these nominations unresolved for lengthy periods of time. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
To Wrh2: Ban is in effect. Sorry for the delay on this. Though I disagreed with them, I felt the points made by Powers and Pashley were valid and they ought to be given the chance to defend them against my rebuttal before the trigger was pulled. I think at this point enough time has passed, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I considered your post just another comment, not a "rebuttal" that needed any defense. It did not speak to my point that any ban is unnecessary. Pashley (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I also didn't see anything to respond to. It's clear there's a desire to see Alice banned; I just hadn't seen her do anything ban-worthy yet. Powers (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


This IP has been blocked for touting by User:Ikan Kekek for 3 days. --Saqib (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked Saqib to post this notice because I am currently accessing the internet through a phone which doesn't enable me to copy any text or use more than one tab. The previous block of this IP hotel marketer was for 1 day, with a warning of a longer block the next time they added a listing. I don't expect this block to be at all controversial but wanted a notice here because of the length of the block. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
A deaf and determined spambot? Block. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:, User:[edit]

Note: Moved from Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress#Edit warring, insistence on bad grammar/syntax. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where else to put a notification about edit warring. Have a look at this history please. Also look at Talk:Krabi Town#Grammar and User talk: User: seems to be the same user. See this edit history. Should I move this to User ban, instead? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Further background. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd say a short userban is in order. If you move this discussion to User ban, I'll vote accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd propose a 1-day block with a warning to both talk pages that the next instance of edit warring will result in a 3-day block. And it would be better if an admin other than me took care of this, so it wouldn't look like a personal dispute. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Three-day block per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks. I think the usual procedure is fine for this instance. Alice and 118 got the three-day treatment, and IMO this is a clearer case of incivility then either of those. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to a 3-day block. This user is being disruptive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
It looked a bit like these were the same person, but these IPs seems to be in different parts of the world, which casts some doubt on it being the same person. The is using dynamically allocated IPs in the 80.90.196.* range, so blocking that one IP won't achieve much. Also, they do seem to be doing constructive copy editing. I agree with Ikan about that partic instance of switching parentheses to commas, but otherwise their edits seem quite good. Things seem to have settled over the last few days. I don't think this is a "last resorts" situation at this point. Nurg (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In the interim, while this userban nom was ignored by almost everyone, these IP users gave up edit warring in those articles (at least temporarily). However, if the first of these IPs engages in edit warring in the future, I plan to take action without waiting for a long discussion here, seeing how almost no-one seems to be paying attention to this page anymore - even though I'd much rather if another admin would take care of any suspensions of these IPs. I don't think the rest of the copy editing is always constructive, though. It's a combination of genuinely good editing and getting rid of all colorful language in articles. But problematic editing is not a reason for a userban; edit warring is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Ikan. I've been moving house and have had only sporadic Internet access. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
You have nothing to apologize for, Andre. It's everyone else, who completely ignored this, who could have created a problem. Fortunately, the edit warring stopped. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, Nurg, one of the things the Alice/Frank/118 saga should've taught us is that the occasional helpful content edit (or even a fairly consistent track record of helpful content edits, in their case) is not sufficient to avoid the banhammer in cases of incivility. As I see it, the comma-splicing thing is something of a red herring; the real issue is lack of civility. I would have no problem with this user advocating to use commas in the way he chooses, so long as he did so civilly and constructively, and agreed to accept the consensus of the community when it inevitably came out against him. However, he has done neither of those things. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ikan, first, you do more patrolling here than anyone else and I always try to support your efforts. However, in this case the links provided in the nomination were to a dispute over a small number of minor copyediting issues in a single article. There may be more going on, but based on what was provided it wasn't something I felt comfortable getting involved with. Any admin can provide a short duration block without the need for a nomination in cases of edit warring, but if we're going to ask for a neutral third-party to get involved then the nomination needs to make it clear that a block is warranted so that anyone supporting the block can justify that support with existing guidelines and policies, rather than simply because a trusted user has asked them to do so. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No, the issue was edit warring. If the edit warring had continued, it would have been a problem. Since it stopped, a block turned out to be unnecessary, so this is kind of moot, but it was quite surprising to me that almost no-one had any reaction to my userban nom. But yeah, I felt a little strange about blocking the user myself, since it would then appear personal, as the edit warring was with me, and I felt like it wasn't the first (or, well, second) time I had disagreed with this editor's choices, under various IPs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we overuse the "banhammer" (to borrow an unpleasant coinage), but consensus has been against me, so I tend to stay away from ban discussions these days. Powers (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In this case, it turned out for the best that no-one was blocked, but I think we're rarely so lucky in these kinds of situations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


A tout who Pashley warned about spamming the Travellers' Pub and who responded by posting the same text verbatim several days later. Blocked for three days per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks; I'm writing this notice just for the record, and to let others know to keep on the lookout after the three days is up. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Coastal Wood[edit]

A tout not just adding same business to many pages but also more than once on the same page. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I just warned him/her, but we don't need to discuss this here, as the first block should be a short one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The URL being spammed should be added to the spam blacklist, if it's not there already. K7L (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm OK with leaving a single detouted listing up, as long as there is no further spamming, but if you think it's essential to blacklist the URL, go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


See User talk: I've already banned the IP user for a week, and I don't foresee this being controversial but just wanted to note it here because it's a long block. The edit that triggered the current block was not too egregious and didn't exactly involve a new listing, but it is does attempt some SEO. Had there not been a previous history of hotel marketing or blocks, I would not have blocked the user for this, but there was, and if the user ever decides to pay any attention to his/her user talk page, s/he will see that I am giving him/her a chance to appeal the latest block if s/he decides to do so, and I'd be willing to lift the block if I get a reasonable reply, but I hold out very little hope of that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Very fair.
Thank you for acting correctly and according to natural justice. --W. Frankemailtalk 09:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Travel doc96[edit]

Just a notice that I indefblocked this user per nrwt as he is almost certainly an IB employee (and, failing that, absolutely certainly a trolling-only account). The user came to my attention when he posted a disruptive comment in the Pub. I took a look at his exceedingly short contribution history, and he has 1) a grand total of two mainspace edits, quite inconsequential ones at that, compared to 2) sixteen oddly specific contributions in project space, the majority of which are complaints about or derisive references to our removal of external links to WT in the footers of our articles, which we did several months ago.

Granted that none of the foregoing points add up to smoking-gun proof that the user is working on behalf of IB, but couple that with the deceptive similarity of his username to James Heilman's handle "Travel Doc James", the references to WT in his user talk page, and Rschen's past assertion that "accounts created solely to troll" should be banned on sight, and I think a fairly ironclad case for an indefban is made regardless of whether IB had a hand in this user's conduct.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the reason for the silence that the community is okay with my action, or because no one has gotten around to reading this yet? Indefbanning someone without consultation is a big deal, and I would appreciate some reassurance that I didn't act out of turn. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
A username deliberately created to impersonate another user is usually shoot-on-sight, even if we haven't documented the concept quite as clearly as w:Wikipedia:Username policy#Misleading usernames. K7L (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this is a case of impersonation, but I agree that this user had no intention of helping to create a travel guide. I don't think anyone is going to miss this user. Powers (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, is the ban proposal based solely on their history of trolling? I appreciate there are other aspects as well, but just want to be sure of the core issue. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The trolling alone is ample reason for the block, as far as I'm concerned. Well spotted, AndreCarrotflower. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to answer your question, Andrewssi2. There are things about this case that are incontrovertibly true, and things that are almost certainly true but not quite 100%.
Although this user's behavior bears all the hallmarks of an IB troll – a contribution history that is very short and consists almost entirely of extremely specific complaints about administrative or technical issues vis-à-vis our separation from our old host that a typical newbie would not know or be concerned about, all delivered in an exceptionally nasty tone – it's nonetheless impossible to conclusively determine the true identity of the user absent a Checkuser investigation. Similarly, it's also impossible to definitively prove that this user chose his name intentionally to cause confusion with User:Jmh649, but the monicker "Travel Doc" is unusual enough that if it's a coincidence, it's a strange one.
However, what is incontrovertibly true is that this user's primary goal on Wikivoyage is to troll. I suppose the question of whether nrwt or impersonating another user make up part of the userban rationale depends on how strict the threshold is to prove those things. But even if neither of those things are true, I'm a firm believer in the notion that trolling-only accounts should be dealt with in the way I've dealt with this one. I know I'm going out on a limb by putting that into action absent a clear policy directive for cases like this, but luckily the community seems to be behind me in this case.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Well done! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


User contributions are solely edit warring, and the user has completely ignored edit summaries and User talk: messages, including blocks of 1 day and 31 hours and a further warning. Blocked for 3 days this time, and I'm posting this merely to inform everyone. It's too bad, because the user may have a good point, but there's just no way to know that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked for 1 week. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User: (fourth block for User:118.93nzp and associated IP addresses)[edit]

For those of you who haven't been following recent events in the pub, we've had another round of forum shopping about section headers. This is to notify the community that I've instituted a one-year block on this user on that basis. Forgive me for acting unilaterally, but Ikan Kekek's directive calls for this user to be blocked on sight in the event of "attempts to argue about unrelated policy in inappropriate places" (i.e. a conversation in the Pub that was supposed to be about Creative Commons attribution), and I'd really prefer to avoid the ridiculous circus that always takes place on this page when one of these accounts is nominated for a ban.

Though the next stage in the escalating user blocks schematic would call for an indefban, that is of course impossible in the case of an IP-only editor. One year as about as long a block as I'd be comfortable with in that case.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What about that user's comment "It's been clear for a long while that (except for destination articles' inferior Table of Contents) Wikivoyage has been the superior guide for many months now."? I'd say he or she is perfectly correct there; our TOCs have been badly broken for 18 months or so. See Wikivoyage talk:Banner Expedition#Add a "full TOC" button?. Pashley (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about the merits of the user's arguments or any nice things he may have said in between disruptive edits; it's about a clearly established pattern of forum-shopping and derailing unrelated discussions in order to expound on the same two or three pet issues. If he or anyone else wanted to talk about the table of contents, he should've done so in an appropriate way and in the appropriate place. However, and this is the crux of my point: the user, whatever name you want to give him, has been warned about this many times in the past, and has been blocked for it several times in the past. And our community, in a rare display of decisive decision-making, has agreed on a course of action for repeat occurrences, which I have followed to a T.
Our community's wishy-washiness regarding the issue of users who like to forum-shop and be disruptive has really, really got to stop. In the past, when someone has proposed taking action against this user for past occurrences of this type of behavior, we've talked and talked in circles and delayed taking action for as long as possible. In the past, when users have proposed Checkuser investigations or changes to sockpuppet policy, we've talked and talked in circles and nothing was ever done. And now we have a power vacuum that has been created because no one wants to roll up their sleeves, plunge forward, and do the actual dirty work of leadership and policy-crafting.
Now I'm willing to stick my neck out here and take an action that may come back to bite me later, because I love this site and I believe that we are the best travel guide in the world. However, there are times when I almost want to throw my hands up and ask if we really want to have a functioning community. Whether we really care about things like civility and the policies we draw up. If we're not serious about these things, just tell me and I'll stop beating the drum when things like this happen. Otherwise, what I did was within the parameters of policy, and obstructionism is the last thing we need.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This situation remains regrettable, but AndreCarrotflower just explained it perfectly. I don't see anything to disagree with there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I do. Nothing on the Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits page mentions "forum shopping" and blocks are explicitly described as a "last resort". To me, various admins bleating about "forum shopping" and ill-defined "disruptive edits" is getting nearly as irritating as the repetitive nonsense about upright= or TOC right. I assume good faith all round, I appreciate Andre's willingness to "to stick my neck out here and take an action that may come back to bite me later", and of course w:There Is No Cabal, but at times some of Tony et al.'s babbling about stick-in-the-mud editors almost sounds sensible.
To me, the obvious response to an edit you see as forum shopping is a one-liner such as: "That discussion belongs at Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition." Then, if you want to be aggressive, revert any further posts in the thread where they are off-topic. I see no reason to even consider a ban unless they turn that into an edit war. Pashley (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Pashley, you're aware of the history in this case. Why do you want to waste time? I'd agree with you if this were the first time the user in question had done this, or even the second, possibly even the fifth, but it's the zillionth. Unless you'd like to volunteer to police this user's edits full-time, 24/7, I think you should reconsider. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't wanted to comment on this but couldn't stop myself. For the record: You've my support Andrew. Good move! Recently, a monument was erected in Poland to honour Wikipedia and its volunteer community. I hope someday someone may erect a shrine for this fanatical overzealous user who I think is not going to leave us anytime soon. He repeatedly tried to provoke anger and frustration between the community members and never let us work in a calm and peaceful environment. Rather than engaging in further discussions with trolls like this will only make the involved editor more emotional so I think he deserves to be blocked for any single inappropriate or non-constructive edit that he make from now.--Saqib (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Pashley's remarks about the wording of Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits is illustrative of another point on which our community needs to take action. Clearly, user bans were "a last resort" at one time – just take a look at the first few entries in Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive – but since then, in tandem with our growth, our method of handling unwanted edits has evolved in a different direction. That is okay. That is a good thing. Obviously the logistics of running Wikivoyage 2014 are quite different than the logistics of running the little seedling of a site that we were in 2004 or 2005 or whenever those first few user ban nominations date back to. What is not okay or a good thing is when reactionary forces prevent our written policy from being updated to conform with our de facto policy, which has been proposed on several occasions before and which has resulted in little more than yet more talking around and around in circles.
To be perfectly blunt, the idea that "user bans are a last resort" is a huge steaming load of naïve poppycock that has no place on any wiki of our size that hopes to run smoothly. It's an unrealistically milquetoast approach that bears no resemblance to how we actually deal with problem editors on this wiki, nor does it bear any resemblance to analogous procedures on any other WMF site that I know of. Simply put, we will not – we could not if we tried – go back to mollycoddling people who are clearly not participating in Wikivoyage in a good faith way. Our written policy as it currently stands is an artifact of an earlier era of this community's evolution that needs to be put to bed for good.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I completely understand AndreCarrotflower wanting to avoid the 'ridiculous circus' each time a user starts participating with edits that are both 'good' and 'bad', and if this is likely 118.93nzp avoiding their ban then it is justified. (Disclaimer: I have not studied the edits in questions)
At the same time I fully understand Pashley's concern. Is this a time to start a discussion about the ban process outside of the direct context of 118.93nzp and others? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It's clearly the same user (or extremely closely-associated group of alter egos, if you prefer). Have a look at the user contributions when you have a chance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Andrewssi2 - To be clear, this is a case of recidivism but not block evasion; 118.93nzp's most recent ban expired on 25 June of this year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
And that's the difficulty here. If I understand correctly, the main issue is the discussion in the Pub? The real question then is, whether or not the comments in the Pub by this user (who I too expect to be associated with the accounts previously blocked) constitute a blockable offence in itself. Yes, this user was punished before, but he's free to edit again. Forumshopping is a tricky concept for me. There are of course clear examples of heavy agenda-pushing or article editing that have a seriously disrupting effect. In those cases everyone might agree there's no other way of action than to block again. We should however be very wary of scaring people out of voicing their status-quo defying opinions, even repeatedly, hoping to convince others in due time. I feel in cases like this we should try to review a user's edits without frustration over the past. Now I'm not involved enough in this to have a clear view. However, if this is only about the comments in the Pub, then I must admit I have doubts too. A year block just seems like a very serious punishment for repeating an opinion, which of course is probably fruitless and may annoy some editors who don't agree or who've had to invest time in this user in the past, but don't seem disruptive to me. Of course, everything changes if I've overlooked disruptive edits like changing section headers against consensus. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, Julias, we're not talking about a good-faith editor here – were talking about an editor who is fully conscious of the disruption he is causing and chooses to continue anyway. This user has a long history of pushing issues in a way that is contrary to policy, and we have been more than patient with him: we've gone from taking his opinions into due consideration, to engaging him in discussion regarding a possible compromise, to asking him politely to stop being disruptive, to blocking him (numerous times).
If this user wanted to engage in yet another discussion about section headers, as I said, there's an appropriate place for that and it isn't in a discussion about unrelated matters. But frankly, even if it were in the right place, I might still be inclined to call the discussion disruptive: with this user I think we're far past the point of worrying about denying him the opportunity to "voice his status-quo-defying opinion". After all, we've been down this road before with him, and letting it go and being accepting of consensus that does not agree with your opinion are also policies of ours. The mandate for dealing with this user has been an immediate block on the first offense, according to the escalating user blocks schematic, for any forum-shopping or other conduct that is disruptive. That is the procedure that has been followed without controversy in the two previous blocks of this user, and I see no reason why it should not be followed here.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(reindent) Belatedly, in response to Andrewssi2: I would be enthusiastically in support of any initiatives to reform our written policy on userbans to better reflect what the actual usual procedure is. I hope that my statements to that effect earlier in this discussion and in previous discussions, and for that matter my statements regarding reforming our sockpuppet policy, were understood to be applicable across the board, rather than specifically to 118.93nzp, Frank, Alice, and the other heads of the hydra. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Andre, thanks for being bold and acting timely, I wasn't following closely, but now when reading back I believe it was an appropriate step in accordance with our policies. Danapit (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Hiveserviceapartments and User:[edit]

These accounts have been guilty of a touting edit war: see Revision history of "Coimbatore" and User talk:Hiveserviceapartments. I'm sure this will not be controversial, but I am posting as usual to inform everyone. I fully expect this stubborn user to return to again edit war, which will incur blocks of 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No objection here, but for the record, policy says the user blocks escalate more quickly: from three days, to two weeks, to three months, to indefinite. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's good to know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Is there any doubt anymore that this is the same user as Frank, the nzp user, et al.? I was quite willing to let this slide if he continued to be a totally constructive user, and in fact made him an Autopatroller pretty recently, before the similarity between him and the Frank accounts was pointed out to me, but now he's started to become ornery over an issue only he and Alice get exercised over. Look through his user contributions if you like. Block evasion is subject to a ban. As always, I regret banning this user because of the amount of really good stuff he does. But if he's going to go down the same road as before, don't we need to nip him in the bud? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Indefbanned for block evasion. The Frank/Alice/118 puppetmaster has a somewhat distinctive writing style that I've come to be able to recognize more or less immediately. But like you, I gave this user the benefit of the doubt until he started banging on about the same tired subjects. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, regarding feelings of guilt over banning a user despite "the amount of really good stuff he does", it might do you good to read over w:WP:YANI#You can be replaced. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Regret is not the same emotion as guilt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Understood. Still, the text is apropos. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I think he or she is wrong on the currency symbol stuff, but I see no grounds for a ban for arguing that point. As for the sock puppet notion: yes, there's a resemblance in style but that is far from conclusive.
Not to leave a dead horse unbeaten and for whatever it may be worth, I'm still not certain the Tony or Alice/Frank/118 bans were justified. Sure, they were all opinionated and sometimes annoying, but then so are various others including me at times. Pashley (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
As discussed (many many times as per the dead horse) before, there is no 100% sure way that we can determine sockpupperty. Nevertheless it should be obvious to anyone that this user and 118 are the same. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that it's obvious. Ttcf even mentions using the listing editor for the first time and appeared unaware of prior discussion on the topic. The other odd thing is that I could have sworn I'd seen the username around and editing for some time, but it appears the account's first edit was just this month. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. Powers (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with others that it's fairly obvious that the users are the same:
  • The user's edits have shown the same focus on English-to-British spelling, time formats, currency formats and other trivial copyediting. These edits also indicate an extensive familiarity with this site.
  • Like 118, Ttcf states that he has edited here and on WT over a ten year period [22] and that he is also from New Zealand [23].
  • Ttcf also has the same editing quirks as 118. W. Frank and 118 are the only editors I'm aware of to have used the "WV:AOU" shortcut [24], both Ttcf and 118 obsessively change "traveler" to "traveller" [25], both have the same habit of obsessively removing whitespace from headings [26], both have the habit of moving closing braces in listing tags onto the same line as the content argument [27], etc, etc.
  • You can also track contribution histories here and at WT, and look at editing patterns for IPs used by this user, and it seems clear that we're either dealing with the same user or with someone who wants us to think they're the same user.
Identifying sock puppets is more art than science, but this case seems as clear-cut as they come to me.
For the record, despite the fact that I assumed 118 and Ttcf were the same user, I was encouraged that Ttcf was editing here without reverting to the behavior that led to previous blocks, but was keeping a close eye on the user in case the disruptive editing patterns resumed. Insofar as 118 was blocked for disruptive editing, and that Ttcf is clearly a sockpuppet account, and that others viewed the latest Pub edits as the beginning of a resumption of past behavior, I think it's clear that a block of this account is justified. I wish there was some way to keep this user as a positive contributor, but as we discussed extensively in past block nominations, the repeated patterns of passive aggressive behavior towards others, and 118's disruptive editing have far outweighed any good contributions the user has made. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


There is a user adding strange text to the talk pages of Chicago and other cities. It appears they already tried this on WT and are what could be described as a questionable state of mind, accusing admins of being part of criminal gangs. Is blocking appropriate? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Typical response. Like additionally, according to every single Administrator out there, it is a Federal/International Felony, easily punishable by 90 years to life imprisonment and/or public execution for any person to have any type of social interactions in any public place, as well as warn any person or persons about crime/violence problems in any city. Another suspected part of the dreadful New World Order! Conserve (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I indefbanned this obvious vandal per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban. I've run out of patience for nonsense. Either contribute constructively or not at all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Definitely a rather strange case, although clearly not interested in being constructive. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I watched the events at WT. I support this being stopped quickly here. Nurg (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose an indef block. meatball:Soft security techniques were not even attempted. The first principle of soft security is assuming good faith. That requires us to assume that this user is indeed interested in contributing information about crime and violence to our travel guides. We should be discussing how to encourage this user to either do so constructively or to simply give up on his/her own. Blocking this one account only encourages the user to find other ways to continue the undesirable behavior. Powers (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree in principle Powers, which is why I opened for discussion rather than block right away. However based on the contributions both here and on WT, I really don't think this particular user has any sane knowledge to share about crime. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Assuming good faith does not mean being naïve. The word "assume" is apropos - we're to act as if users are here to contribute constructively absent a certain threshold of evidence to the contrary. Well, we have an abundance of evidence to the contrary, in the guise of the user's edit history here and on Wikitravel, and especially his response on this thread and his conduct on his talk page. An indefban was warranted because policy explicitly makes an exception to the usual soft-security procedures for obvious vandals, and if this isn't an obvious vandal, I don't know what is.
Furthermore, I am growing extremely tired of hearing ridiculous pleas for clemency on behalf of users who are obviously not here to contribute constructively, and I am grateful that the old way of thinking about user bans is being slowly but surely dragged onto the ash heap of Wikivoyage history. The old policy, frankly, took our community for fools. All of us here are intelligent enough to tell the difference between a good-faith contributor who's here to help write a travel guide, and a troublemaker who's here to disrupt. It's a matter of common sense, which the old way of doing things seemed to think we lacked. Good riddance to it.
You would think that we would have learned from our own experience by now - the damage done by vandals of the past remains evident today, who drove away in frustration users like Peter who might have been cornerstones of our community and are instead gone for good, and users like Jan and Alexander who pop in far less frequently than they otherwise might. I don't want English Wikivoyage to turn into another version of, say, Simple English Wikipedia, where the community was so lenient on trolling and vandalism that trolls and vandals are basically the only contributors left. (That might be an exaggeration, but not an extreme one.)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with AndreCarrotflower on this. On what basis do any of you think this user could have suddenly gained a reasonable attitude? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm also in support of AndreCarrotflower in this case. We should always err on the side of caution, but this user's lengthy history on WT, and the shorter history here, clearly show a troll at work - a non-troll doesn't solely contribute edits that consist of bizarre straw-man arguments and accusations that other editors are gang members and North Koreans, while at the same time insisting that Chicago and similar areas be treated as war zones (see also File:Chicagoland crime map.jpg, which uses what appear to be crayons to show violent crime rates of 2,000-3,000 per block in some neighborhoods). The "obvious vandal" portion of the user ban policy was put in place explicitly to save us the trouble of having to waste time with these sorts of trolls. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that 'crime map' picture of Chicago is one of the funniest things I have seen for a while. Probably more due to its production qualities than anything else. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This user qualifies to me as obvious vandal too, so AndreCarrotflower's block is appropriate to me. That said, anyone should be free to voice contrary opinions based on interpretations of policy without being passed off as ridiculous. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Trolling and vandalism are completely different behaviors. I don't see any vandalism at all in this user's history. Powers (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you calling the user a troll, yet nevertheless objecting that we should "assume good faith"? Isn't the definition of a troll someone who operates in bad faith? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I fail to understand the necessity of distinguishing between trolling and vandalism for the purposes of userbans. The MOs may be somewhat different, but the bad faith in which they operate and the ultimate goal of disruption to the project are the same for both. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but the obviousness of the identification is significantly less in the case of trolling than in the case of vandalism. The only reason consensus allows summary bans for vandalism-only accounts is because vandalism is easily identified. Trolling is much harder to properly distinguish from well-intentioned, inadvertently bad editing, and thus suspected trolls need to have a userban discussion here. Powers (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Support an indef ban. This troll has not even tried to do anything constructive.
Apart from everything else, "Every incident from Wikitravel .. has allready been reported on Topix." looks like a violation of Wikivoyage:No real world threats which is grounds for an indef ban. Pashley (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


Under normal circumstances this would be an autoindefban per nrwt, but since the crackdown on problem edits has come under increased scrutiny lately, I suppose I can do this by the book and submit this for review. The user account in question was created 14 minutes ago as of this writing, and his inaugural contribution in the pub described Ryan's proposed tweaks to the Main Page as "basically an uglier Wikitravel". Is there anyone who does not think this an IB employee? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's an IB employee or some other troll, but I'm not expecting anything constructive from this user. I will not miss him/her :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, if someone just suddenly kicks the door open and start their WV career with such an "contribution", I don't see any reason not to block them right away. "WVeteran"... ϒpsilon (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Not to belabor the point, but policy states quite clearly: "User bans are a last resort that should be used in only the most extreme cases. Before even considering a user ban, exercise patience and professionalism to try to work with the user who is making unwanted edits; doing otherwise might make an enemy out of a potential friend." One contribution may be enough to identify a vandalism-only account, but it's not enough to identify inveterate trolls. A ban is premature, not least because the soft security approach of simply reverting the unacceptable edit has demonstrably worked perfectly so far. Powers (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You're citing a policy that is de facto no longer in effect, Powers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It's all I have to cite. You can't just change practice and not tell anyone what the new rules are. Powers (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Our practice in the past has been to ignore drive-bys like this one, and only act if problem edits continue. That practice doesn't cause us to waste time with users who make just one or two quick edits, and also prevents mis-identifying a troll based on a small sample size of edits. I think that's a good way to continue to handle things - ignore trolls who make one or two harmless edits, but block them if they are persistent. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Good enough, but hopefully we can at least revert the nonconstructive edits of these "drive-by" trolls without breaching Wikietiquette. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
That sounds fine ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Quickly blocked as it look like things were getting out of hand. Set to 1 day but maybe should be longer? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This user has already been indef blocked per Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive#User:Conserve, so a three month IP block (the max allowed) would not be unreasonable. However, for an IP address one day is probably sufficient unless they return using the same address. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh this was the the great map artist. Did think the style had something going for it :-) --Traveler100 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought 'Conserve' was just some guy making a one time joke, but interesting to note that this individual started these edits way back in 2007 from this IP! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if it was the same person too, but maybe with such a long interval maybe just the same school. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This site is even worse than Wikitravel! So North Korean, and so gangster Mafia like! On Wikivoyage, even a single edit that the mods don't like is taken as harshly by this site as a ruthless wanted cop killer is taken by law enforcement! —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Usman Khan Shah[edit]

I've blocked Usman for 2 hours without consulting the community due to his continued disruptive behaviour. Please see Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Urdu_Wikivoyage. --Saqib (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also made a block request on Meta-Wiki as he's vandalising there. --Saqib (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to note short blocks here. I've even been told that blocks of 3 days or more for obvious reasons that won't be controversial don't need to be noted here, but I do it anyway as a courtesy to other users, if the block might seem unusually long without people knowing the background behind it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per policy "Exceptions to the user ban nomination process include: Blocks of one day or less when used as a discretionary tool for administrators. These blocks are sometimes used in slowing high-volume unwanted edits or in getting the attention of a user who is editing in unwanted ways. In general such blocks should be applied for very short periods (two hours or less) and only increased in length if the unwanted edits persist." Powers (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Chicago abuse[edit]

I've created a filter to disrupt the intermittent user who want to describe Chicago and surrounding suburbs as war zones.

I won't describe all the criteria in case they are reading this, but admins can have a look here: Special:AbuseFilter/21. It is safe to reveal that autoconfirmed users will not trip the filter. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrewssi2 - good idea to use the Abuse Filter, but it strikes me that there's a small chance that the shorter of the words you've blacklisted might invite false positives. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks AndreCarrotflower . I have reworked it to avoid that word as well as still detecting all of those changes made yesterday. Please can you check again?
A logic error caught a completely unrelated edit in Vietnam yesterday. I will enter that in the right location. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Andrewssi2 - the two newest words you've added to the filter, I think, are terms that might be used in good-faith edits regarding the crime/safety situation in Chicago, therefore are fairly likely to generate false positives. I've altered the filter to include some words and phrases I think would work better - commonly used by the vandal in question yet unlikely to be used by anyone else. Important: keep in mind this is my very first time editing an abuse filter; I think I got the gist of it but there may be some coding errors, so if you could, please go in there and correct any mistakes I might have made. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Your edit looks fine. You can always try the filter test function if you are not sure in future. I just tried your filter and it does catch most of yesterday's edits. I added one more term that will catch all of them. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


Is there any good reason to allow this obvious IB troll to continue to operate here? User contributions. How long do you think a Wikivoyage troll of this nature (if anyone was so stupid as to waste time on that) would last on Wikitravel? I nominate this useless user for a permanent ban of his registered account and any IP he uses. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • By all means, let's get rid of him. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Do Andre and Ikan live together? Or are they both Frank accounts? They speak the same words the same way and have the same bad attidude. I say we ban them both for their continued poisoning of this great project. Harlan888 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
That's enough out of you. Indefbanned as IB employee per nrwt. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Let's keep an eye on this malcontent. If after 4 edits, they're already making this kind of complaint, they're not really new. I think most of us know who this probably is, violating an indefban. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And User: might possibly be the same user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
And other IPs; have a look at User talk: I'm not sure what's in common between the IPs other than obvious patterns in editing style. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Pretty obvious case of block evasion on Frank/Alice/118's part. Any IP exhibiting this behavior pattern should be banned without further notice. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but how are we going to effectively block a user that changes IPs so often? I don't have the technical know-how. User:Andrewssi2, you're our filter expert, aren't you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I did get some (probably justified) pushback on too many filters , but if having a filter for this would reduce admin workload with a low chance of false-positives then happy to help. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that they appear to be on vacation in Malaysia (at least that is where the IP's are coming from, as well as from their pub message complaint about TOC's). Their edits don't follow any pattern, and as such I can't write a filter for 'anonymous user who has a unjustified sense of self-importance with a desire to cause unneeded drama'.
Can't understand why they don't just stick to WT where their brilliance is welcome. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure his brilliance is welcome on WT. Frank is not an IB troll. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I assumed it was 118. I didn't think he has had any issues with IB, but haven't actually bothered to check either him or WT so who knows? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
These 3 IPs are now blocked, but obviously we should stay on the lookout. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Well done making it just 1 month, as he will probably by then have moved on or be on another IP, and we don't want innocent parties coming along later and being blocked. Nurg (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The voice of sanity as usual. 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


More block evasion, though if some of you don't find it obvious yet, feel free to keep a watch on this IP. For an obvious example, see this user's contributions to Talk:Urbex#American to British English?. These was another IP that this user also recently used, and I mentally noted it at the time, but as always, figured I'd give them a chance to post constructively this time. If I find it, I'll post it here, too; otherwise, watch other IPs for similar behavior. This is a leopard who never changes his spots. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

But s/he does change IPs. 20:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Instead of taunting and wasting our time, why don't you at long last change your behavior? We've been through this so many times. I always notice very quickly when you're back, but I always give you a chance to avoid the kinds of behavior that got you banned before. It's just sad that you won't change and be cooperative in working within consensus. I will take this as a confession and block this IP. If you really insist on playing "whack-a-mole" with us, so be it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
One could say the same for you guys:
Continual refusal to recognise the overwhelmingly most important task for this project: preventing Goojle from regarding us as a derivative work and hence getting significantly more eyeballs to actually read the better guide. How long has it been now? The penny eventually dropped with regard to external link formats and a usable ToC - how long do you have to remain silly about SEO?
And your memory is rather selective. Frank and Alice are two separate people - albeit that they share some similar goals.
Incidentally, you don't have to play whack-a-mole. I'd be the first to stop editing if I thought I was actually making our travel guide worse, but (genuine mistakes excepted) you'll find it difficult to find an edit of mine or Frank that any fair-minded individual would find that way. Now I don't want to raise your blood pressure and I have no control over when the virtual network I use switches IP so I'll absent myself for a while. 21:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
User: has also been blocked after not only not absenting himself but also edit warring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

[Unindent] New account to watch and block at the first sign of trouble: User: Follow user contributions here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked per the admission of being the same user at Special:Diff/2847056/2847059, and I've reverted all contributions since it seems likely that this current episode might otherwise continue indefinitely. For anyone unfamiliar with this user, search for "W. Frank", "Alice", "118.93" or "Ttcf" on Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive - these user(s) have a long history involving many good edits, but also an abrasive attitude and an unwillingness to work cooperatively with others that eventually lead to an indefinite block of all accounts. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
New one that appears to be the same user, to watch: User:, user contributions. Any possibility of a filter? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
None whatsoever.
And none of the edits have done any discernible harm to the guide - as opposed to the egos of some overly sensitive types.
Concentrate on something more productive - I did say clearly I wouldn't linger long - unless you try and make it a pissing contest... 00:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think for the moment you can safely assume that any IP in the 80.234.*.* range is the same user, and a two hour block should be safe & sufficient. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
True. 00:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Alice/Frank/118 summary[edit]

I'm adding this for documentation purposes so that if any related accounts are blocked in the future there is a summarized discussion that can be cited for reference. First, see the following ban nomination discussions, listed chronologically:

Also note that on Wikipedia, w:User:Alice and w:User:118.93nzp are indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppets of w:User:W. Frank (w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of W. Frank).

While Wikivoyage policy allows for blocks applied on other Wikimedia projects to be applied on Wikivoyage as well, the blocks of the above accounts instead resulted primarily from civility issues on Wikivoyage, including issues related to assumption of good faith, issues related to respecting consensus, and a failure to moderate behavior that was cited as uncivil by other editors; the linked discussions above include far more detail and should be read in full by anyone seeking a fuller understanding of the situation. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User: and User:[edit]

These users are touting in the Almaty article, and since the second IP was used for block evasion of a 30-minute block, I have blocked both IPs for 1 month. Please watch the Almaty article carefully. The user's M.O. is to restore the reverted listings and add more on top of them. All are touty. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See the revision history of the Almaty article and User talk: for reference. User contributions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


I took the step to place an indefinite block on this account, since it was just being used by the Rocky vandal to evade the abuse filter.

The same user has indefinite blocks on many other Wikis: Special:CentralAuth/Boxingdude --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


This user has just moved into 'Real life threats' as per User_talk:Traveler100#Commiting_Suicide (just because the threat is to themselves makes no difference in my view)

I believe that is sufficient reason to ban. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Permabanned per nrwt based on the link you provided above. Also, while I doubt the sincerity of his promise to commit suicide, perhaps we should play it safe: what do you all think about what meta:Threats of harm says? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how a threat to kill oneself is in any way comparable to threats against others. Why would we treat them the same? Sometimes, suicidal people need sympathy. We might even possibly save a life. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I think there was ample reason to ban this user, so I'm just discussing the policy toward threats of suicide, which I think should be treated differently from threats of assault on others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The nature of the user's contribution history casts serious doubt, IMO, on the sincerity of the user's remarks. Of course I might be wrong, which is why I asked if, to be on the safe side, we shouldn't alert WMF staff per the procedure laid out in meta:Threats of harm. But I don't think so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The link Andre provided summarized things very well. We are not equipped to deal with threats of suicide and we shouldn't try and deal with it, except by notifying the WikiMedia foundation for their professional assessment and response. That is not the same as lacking sympathy but rather in the best interests of the individual in question. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, nrwt contains quite detailed information on how to deal with legal threats, but the procedure for physical threats of harm is much more ambiguous and could use clarification. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


This user is now on her 2nd block (31 hours) for copyright violation and ignoring her user talk page. She has also been guilty of touting. Please see this edit and this one, this history, the user's contributions, and her entirely ignored user talk page. She is not a high-volume user, but her edits tend toward copyright violation and touting, and someone with that track record who ignores their talk page needs to be blocked, in my opinion, to try to get through to them. So I'd like permission for her next block to be for 3 days, then 1 week, etc. What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If the user doesn't respond to repeated concerns about copy violations, then a ban is appropriate. It may get her attention. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I really hope so, though I'm not so optimistic, given that this is her second. But maybe because she is not a frequent poster, she just happened not to be here during the suspension. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


  • This user started by (not proposing, just) changing the districtification of Lima without the least discussion (SHOUTING that we're all wrong and he is right, and after some edit warring "ohh, I'm so sorry for the inconvenients"). After that, he almost made a serious mess on our breadcrumb structure, trying to change "Nazca" to "Nasca", "Cuzco" to "Cusco", "Havana" to "La Habana" ("ohh, I'm so sorry, I didn't know about the English spellings"). When the Lima edit warring resumed, he was blocked. On my opinion, he means well, but his attitude and lack of English writing skills present a serious obstacle for him to contribute on English Wikivoyage. I hope this timeout may serve him good meditating time. Ibaman (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
    • For the record it appears that one of the first things he did (besides edits to Lima and Peru) over at Spanish Wikivoyage was an edit war over whether or not one needs a passport for visiting the Falkland Islands... He seems to be at it again Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Checked. So, the guy is more interested on building a reputation of troublemaker (and a not very smart or well-informed one, it seems) than on writing reliable travel guides. I told you, guys, how this pickle reminds me of Frank/Alice/Telstra. Ibaman (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The contribution history of this user speaks for itself. Edit warring, doing major changes to article structures (Central America/North America, Cuzco/Cusco, Havana etc.) without asking first, attitude towards policies and other Wikivoyagers (and their work — articles, spellings, article structures haven't come about by accident) comparable to that of a teenage shoplifter. This user needs to understand and accept that this is a collaborative project and not a personal website; at the moment it looks like he/she doesn't do that. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This was the conclusion that I was really hoping we would avoid. I personally had the impression that they were a 'bull in a china shop' rather than a deliberate troublemaker, but irrespective of motivation the edits seemed to be doing us more harm than good. I'm hoping future contributions will be more modest until they are familiar with the community processes. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I propose removing Turbo8000's autoconfirmed status in order to make future bans less likely : Wikivoyage_talk:Autoconfirmed_users#Remove_automatic_autocomfirmed_status_for_users_who_make_consistently_bad.2Fincorrect_edits.3F --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment User bans are a big deal, so when a user is being banned for something other than obvious vandalism or spamming it is very, very important that the ban nomination provides sufficient details as to why the user is being banned. That includes diffs demonstrating the problem behavior, and a reference to whatever policy was violated justifying a ban (thanks Hobbitschuster for adding a diff in your comments). I haven't been online a lot in the past couple of days so I don't know what escalated this particular situation from "difficult user" to "banned user", but the nomination should make that clear (honestly, this nominations reads like a rant and does not reflect well on our admins). Based solely on this nomination my opinion would be to oppose a ban, but I am assuming that something has happened to escalate the situation and will defer to those who have been more actively watching things. That said, I'm concerned that bans aren't being taken as seriously as they should be - that's not to say that they shouldn't be used, but the potential for abuse becomes too great if we allow them to be used without requiring proper justification. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think a 3-day block is reasonable. This user has repeatedly edit-warred over largescale changes like the district structure of Lima and largely ignored a series of posts to his/her user talk page, as shown more by the fact of the repeated posts than the typed reaction to them on that page. If you look at Talk:Lima and Talk:Spanish phrasebook, you'll get some of the flavor of the user's comments, and plenty of discussion (in the former) of the user's repeated changes without waiting for a consensus. You also may want to look at the edit history of the Lima article, which is one of the places where edit warring and unilateral large-scale changes have taken place. this history is another relevant one. Basically, the problems so far in Turbo8000's behavior consist of: (1) edit warring and making large substantive changes to articles without first attaining a consensus (including but by no means limited to unilateral spelling changes); (2) using insulting language toward other users. Turbo8000 is a very active user, and I hope that from now on, s/he will work collaboratively and help improve the site, but we probably needed at least a day if not more to decide what to do about the largescale unilateral changes s/he had made without the risk of more edit warring (in addition to the fact that people were getting tired of taking abuse from this user, which can come at any moment). Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I do agree that the justification of a user ban should have been more detailed. Additionally the past week showed that simply protecting the Lima pages were sufficient to get Turbo8000 to talk, so that course of action would have been preferable before the ban. (perhaps with future problem contributors as well)
    • I will personally keep trying to work with this user with the aim of avoiding such bans in future. Although I didn't support the ban, I would say the community as a whole has actually made a strong effort to try and accommodate Turbo8000 whereas in the past a faster ban may have taken place. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem with protecting a page for x number of days is that disrupts other people's (i.e. those who are not admins) work too. A ban only disrupts the person banned. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the correct order of operations 1) propose the ban, then 2) get consensus for the ban, and then 3) implement the ban? Powers (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As the editor who started this topic, I ought to testify about it. As I blocked the guy (he's already declared himself to be a man), Ikan Kekek proposed that I explain it here. If the community were to ask me, I really hope that his conscience kicks in, and that he can learn to use a sandbox and to bring himself to dialog with us fellow editors. Ibaman (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Ibaman, I'm sorry to say that you're not describing my words precisely. Powers is correct. I said something similar, though more gently, as anyone can see at the beginning of User talk:Ibaman#Length of block:
Hello, my friend. Do I understand correctly that User:Turbo8000's first block is 1 week long? Isn't the first block supposed to be no longer than 3 days and agreed upon or at least explained at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations?
Given that you had already set the block (initially for 1 week), I didn't want to insist that you rescind the entire block in order to wait for consensus, but the correct procedure, as previously established, is in fact to get consensus for the ban before executing it (unless it's for obvious spambots and vandalism-only accounts). It would have been more appropriate for you to block him for 24 hours for edit warring and being disruptive and proposed a 3-day ban during that period. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the hasty actions. I got really annoyed with Turbo's actions and incivility. I'm aware that I overreacted. Should I lift his block right now? Ibaman (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • * You were trying to do the right thing Ibaman, and I appreciate you helping in what was a difficult situation. I would say let the (3 day) ban stand for now, and we follow the defined procedures if this happens again (which of course we hope it will not) Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I have changed my mind. Turbo8000 is continuing his edit war on MediaWiki by changing the Lima district map to his own. Bans are to be taken seriously, but this is now where we find ourselves.
It is apparent they have no desire to work with us, but instead to undermine the community at every possible chance. Seriously Talk:Lima tells us all we need to know.
I would ask that we extend this ban by 1 more week. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
In addition to extending his ban, would anyone who's also an administrator at Commons consider blocking his privileges there as well? Should we ask stewards for a global block on him? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be a bit hasty. The Commons rule that one should not simply replace contested information but upload a new file may not have been known to him. He hasn't done anything on Commons to justify a block. Powers (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't claim that he violated Commons policy (otherwise I would have contested this there). He uploaded that file specifically to change Wikivoyage content on Lima. Admittedly we rarely if ever need to look at this aspect of edit warring, but the impact on Wikivoyage is the same. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile, though, if he did violate a Commons rule, it would be good if he were informed of that and requested not to do so again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Turbo8000 - second try[edit]

I don't believe that I got enough consensus for an extended ban and the existing ban is set to expire soon, so in the spirit of "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" I would propose:

1) Leave a message on Turbo8000 talk page explaining (again) that edit warring is not good, and to discuss any changes on the Peru/Lima talk pages

2) Any attempt to edit war again will be met with a 1 week ban

Any objections? Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No objection from me, but I think it should also be explained that that also extends to not substituting images or other information on Commons or Wikidata for images or other content that is currently used on Wikivoyage, including maps. Such actions are also disruptive to Wikivoyage and grounds for another, longer suspension. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No objection from me either. Ibaman (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

New problems from User:Turbo8000[edit]

He's at it again! And here's a warning that if he does this kind of thing once more, he'll be suspended for a week. He can't be allowed to continue edit warring and making unilateral spelling changes to city names. Do I have any objection to enforcing a 1-week ban if he continues this kind of behavior? I hope not, but if you object, now's the time to explain why. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I think there's an argument for this being a VOA, which earn indefinite bans. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
What does "VOA" stand for? To me, that's "Voice of America". Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I am guessing "vandalism only account", though I am not sure as there are too damn many TLAs around the www; not all of them from the USA, though Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
We are dealing with someone who is both very young and doesn't yet have advanced English comprehension skills. They are vandalising due to inexperience rather than by motivation to be a vandal.
I'd support a 1 week ban on any further edit warring. Not indefinite at this time. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
TLAs? Anyway, no, I wouldn't agree that this is a vandalism-only account, and wouldn't support an indefinite ban. This is a person with particular points of view who takes part in various substantive discussions. I don't think that's how someone with a vandalism-only account behaves. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Being a travel site, VOA of course means Visa On Arrival :). Seriously, though, I think it would be good if someone reasonably proficient in Spanish could have a discussion with this user. No objection to a week-long ban. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
"Vandalism-only account" is the acronym, yes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I did not change the spelling, I added the word Cusco. Is there a problem is I add a word with the CORRECT spelling? Turbo8000 21:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Everyone can see that you changed the spelling from Cuzco to Cusco, and regardless of what you consider "correct", yes it is a problem for you to change the spellings of place names without having first convinced a consensus on Wikivoyage to agree with you. And it's not like we haven't discussed this before, extensively. I realize English is not your first language, but is it really possible you didn't understand this yet? If so, I trust that you do now and won't do this again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Turbo8000 : You are aware of this specific point because you were in the discussion here : Talk:Cuzco#Name . Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I think our only active user in Category:User es-4 or Category:User es-N is User:Simon Peter Hughes. Powers (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
A new edit war here. I have blocked for one week as per the discussion above. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, that wasn't the only new edit war. See the history of Lima, specifically [ these unilateral changes to the spelling of Cuzco, but also another edit which was not damaging but wasn't really explained (how was it a "fix"?) and could fairly be interpreted as further edit warring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for detailing that. We did let that one slide out of a desire (I guess) to give them every possible chance. Despite the angry reaction to the ban I'm still willing to try and work with them. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Concur with a ban. Just found a change from Havana to Le Havana on the Quito page, and a random insert of Lima on the El Salvador page.TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please link the edits in question, so that we can see when they were done. If they were done before the previous block, they will not trigger a new block. However, if they are new, it's important for us to look at them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, this edit is from 17 January. Thank you for reverting it, but it will not trigger a new block. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This one is also from 17 January. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

2016-03-04 incident[edit]

I took the liberty of indefbanning this user due to the following extremely problematic diff at Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress. Of course this user had been on our radar screen for some time due to his consensus-defying edits to various articles related to Peru, but in the above edit the user 1) promised in no uncertain terms to continue his campaign of spelling changes for as long as the bans we gave him were of finite duration, which arguably makes him an "obvious vandal" per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban (2nd bullet point from the top), and more germane to the ban rationale, 2) he referred to various Wikivoyage editors collectively by an ethnic slur, which inarguably violates the same bullet point as the foregoing.

Apologies for taking unilateral action here, but the fact that we were willing to pussyfoot around with this user for so long a time is an extremely dismaying development, which strongly implies that we've learned little or nothing from our experiences with the sockpuppeteer in charge of the Alice/Frank/118.93nzp/Ttcf accounts.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes we need to "pussyfoot" because it is unfair to expect new contributors to understand our policies and processes right away. It would be fair to say however that the attempts to reach out to this individual have run out, and there is no profit in more attempts given this latest incident. I just feel sorry for Spanish Wikivoyage that have to deal with him now. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Granted, but I would hope most of us here are savvy enough to distinguish between honest newbie mistakes and bad intentions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any bad intentions here beyond a complete refusal to consider other points of view (and the insult, of course). Turbo's intentions were to improve the travel guide, and he made several productive edits to that end. It's a shame he doesn't understand how collaboration works, but I refuse to be chastised for giving a productive editor a chance to prove he can change the way he interacts with the community. Powers (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and I also find it a problematic development that an admin who has a rather firm opinion on userbans unilaterally overrules other admins when they choose to put an escalated but not indefinite ban in place. It's perfectly acceptable to start a user ban nomination when you don't agree, and some good arguments can be made in this case, but it should have been a nomination. Regardless of your interpretation of our ban policy, that page also states: If there is any doubt as to whether a nomination is needed before blocking a user, admins should err on the side of caution and add a nomination to the Project:user ban nominations page. The fact that you're overruling at least two of your colleagues should give you some doubt about the need for a quick discussion, imho. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
As a non-Admin, I'm not sure I should comment here, but I see him as a well-intentioned, passionate, immature person. Actually, he didn't say he would continue his activities after a finite ban: he said he would leave forever. I would have preferred to see how a 2-week ban played itself out. The term gringo is not, AFAIK, an ethnic slur, especially in Peru: giving him the benefit of the doubt, I would translate gringos ignorantes as "ignorant foreigners." And that certainty that he is right and we are wrong is the crux of his problems with en-Wikivoyage. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it is a terrible insult, but "gringo" is an ethnic slur no matter how you translate it. It is used often in a very light hearted manner, which you could argue was the intent here. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Call it a problematic development all you want, JuliasTravels, but this isn't the first time, nor am I the only admin, who has handled a userban in this way. The deficiencies in policy combined with the unrealistic approach of some admins to the issue of problem editors has made unilateral action a practical necessity in some cases. (And in that vein, regarding Powers' comments above: I don't know nor do I care which particular editor or editors advocated for Turbo to be given the benefit of the doubt, so if you feel personally attacked, please don't. My comments were regarding the attitude of the community as a whole, which leave the impression that we don't take vandalism, incivility, and violations of consensus seriously, which was also the cause of the Alice/Frank/118/Ttcf issue.) The solution to the problem of frustrated admins (again, not only me) taking unilateral action on userbans and only notifying this page after the fact, is to bring policy in line with reality.
Regarding overruling two colleagues, mine was the first action taken against Turbo since the edit I cited in my original post was made (note that he placed his edit above Ibaman's previous edit, out of chronological order). Regarding "my interpretation of policy" and "if there is any doubt", I don't know how much more clear-cut you can get. Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits says "An obvious vandal is someone who is clearly here to edit maliciously", and I don't know how else you can interpret "And I'll still do it" other than as a clear statement of intention to edit maliciously. Again, if policy were as it should have been we would have already indefbanned Turbo for his previous transgressions, but regarding these new ones which I highlighted in my original post - particularly the ethnic slur, about which I disagree with Andrewssi2 as it was clearly not made in a lighthearted way - even the current, relatively toothless policy speaks very clearly, with little or no room for "doubt".
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to give my two cents, in my experience "gringo" is hardly ever intended to be an insult all by itself. It sure does have ethnic connotations (roughly "Western foreigner, American"), but many terms in Latin America do. Maybe he was unaware that the approach towards flippant or (depending on context) offensive terms that are based on ethnicity or physical appearance is very difficult in the Anglosphere from the Spanish speaking world. For instance "Chino" is a more or less "normal" term for any person of "Asian" appearance regardless of ancestry or nationality. Whether it is perceived as offensive by those it is applied to, I don't know, but it is hardly ever meant as offensive. Anyway, he should have been treading with caution which he didn't. He should have been well aware off the reaction he would get to the Nasca/Nazca business and he still proceeded. This merits a penalty (if only for the extreme stupidity which it displays), but I am not sure an indefban is the way forward. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe this user would ever cease being a headache... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

IMO, this incident highlights a weakness of the en-Wikivoyage administrative process, compared to Wikipedia. There, a graduated series of warnings is given, and an editor who gets to level 4 can be blocked by any Admin. Here, we have decided to dispense with warning templates (on the theory of not "rewarding" vandals with feedback, IIRC). It would be unthinkable for a site as big as WP to hold discussions on uncontroversial blocks, and as WV grows, that might eventually be the case here. That said, the purpose of a WP block is to preserve the integrity of the site and keep peace within the community, not punishment or redress. I suspect that at WP, this editor would have been given at most a short vacation. Peter Chastain (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikivoyage tends to regard incivility as a far more serious offense than Wikipedia does (which, given phenomena like this, is likely a very good thing). In my reading, the reason for the intensity of the reaction against Turbo (by myself and others) is not so much the problem edits themselves but the combative and defiant tone he took when advised of how to do things differently.
It's inevitable that newbies will make mistakes, but the other side of the coin is that until they're more comfortable with how Wikivoyage works in terms of consensus and other things, they have to be willing to learn and to take constructive criticism. The vast majority of newbies have no problem doing this, and in my opinion, it's rather insulting to those new editors who behave civilly and contribute constructively for us to let off one who doesn't with little more than a slap on the wrist.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Let me just add at this point that I think uncivil behavior breeds uncivil behavior and if allowed to proliferate can do much more harm to a wiki than simple vandalism. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict, response to Peter Chastain) There was an effort made to put in exactly the sort of process you've described (Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks), but for whatever reason it hasn't really caught on; it would be extremely helpful if people could review that process. We definitely need to improve our handling of these types of situations - on the one hand, we lose good editors when they get overly frustrated by having to work with users who aren't willing to collaborate. On the other hand, we need to ensure that appropriate steps are followed when working with well-intentioned but difficult users. No one should ever see a user block applied and wonder whether it was applied inappropriately. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I honestly don't know why this is controversial. I pointed to two clauses in Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban regarding grounds for immediate indefbans (i.e. superseding the escalating user blocks scheme), both of which very clearly applied to Turbo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There is disagreement that the two clauses you've cited "very clearly" applied in this case. I disagree that the user's edits were malicious and that the use of "gringo" was meant as an ethnic slur. That said, I think Turbo has received sufficient warning and explanation of why his edits were problematic that a further block was probably warranted; my concern is mainly ensuring that we are following a process that makes it clear why a block is applied, and that we don't have to argue about whether someone is misinterpreting site guidelines by applying a block. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I just found this edit of his, which clearly indicates bad faith, no matter how you spin it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't buy the arguments against "gringo" as ethnic slur - Wikipedia regards it as one - but even if we were to take that as true, it at least qualifies as name-calling, which is a demonstration of bad faith and incivility, and also ought to take care of the equally incredulous argument that the user is "well-intentioned but immature". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

(indent reset) (edit conflict) I think "bull in a China shop" is not an unfair characterization of his behavior. What of this is intentional I don't know. But it is kind of hard to assume the best of intentions with what he has done. It almost appears as if he wants to get banned. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Having read all of the above, It looks like the decision to ban, and the diffs provided offer adequate reason to block, without ewven taking the gringo item into account. Any editor on any wiki project that offers edit war without any apology as given by the diff from Hobbitschuster needs to be shown the door. JarrahTree (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't object to the indef ban. I object to the characterization that the initial non-indefinite block constituted "pussyfooting". The application of an immediate indefinite block must be reserved for truly vandalism-only accounts. Powers (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Once the user in question showed clearly that he would not moderate his behavior, I don't think we continued bending over backwards for him much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
It could have been handled with less controversy had we followed Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits, where a warning and then 3-month ban would have been sufficient to get to where we are now. I sympathise with the position of not dealing with obvious time wasters, and I'll raise a question on that policy page. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record; I'm also not objecting to the ban itself. I just think it should have been a nomination. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused about the comments that imply that I didn't follow the procedure laid out in Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits. I did, and to the letter. Policy states that there are certain circumstances under which users can be indefinitely banned without being nominated on this page (though, as a courtesy, I did mention his indefban here after it had already been put into effect). Two of those circumstances are the use of racial slurs - of which "gringo" is one - and in the case of obvious vandals. This leads into my response to Powers' comment, which begins with the fact that I don't subscribe to his excessively narrow definition of "vandalism". It's not just things like adding curse words to articles, or saying "User X was here" or "Destination Y sucks" or whatnot. Whenever a user makes an edit that is either intentionally disruptive, or that he knows the community at large considers disruptive, vandalism has occurred. Turbo probably thought he was improving the site by changing the spelling of Nazca and Cuzco, but he also defied numerous talk page messages advising him as to why we don't do that here, therefore it is considered vandalism regardless of what his intentions vis-à-vis the spelling changes may have been. It works along the same principles as the anonymous Telstra user, who probably thought the naked bullet points and Wikipedia copypasta he was adding were helpful, but whom we nevertheless called a vandal because he ignored the messages we left on his talk page. Powers says "the application of an immediate indefinite block must be reserved for truly vandalism-only accounts", and viewed in the above light Turbo's does indeed look very much like a vandalism-only account - most of his edits have either been instances of the above-described vandalism or of abusive messages on his own and others' talk pages.
That all being the case, I still do find myself frustrated by the constrictions of our current policy on userbans. I apologize if some users felt personally attacked, but I stand by much of what I said. The frustration comes from the time we wasted going through the motions with Turbo when any idiot could have known what the end result would be. It's naive to think that things like "soft security" or weak-tea 3-day userbans are going to make users who come in with a combative and defiant attitude like Turbo's suddenly change into constructive contributors as if flipping a lightswitch. Human psychology doesn't work that way. That's a big part of why I strongly reject any implications that I acted too swiftly or without consultation in banning Turbo. If I were of the mind to abuse the sysop tools in dealing with Turbo, I would have done it a long, long time ago. Instead, and despite my disagreement with policy, I waited until there was a smoking gun. Two of them, in fact.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The statements above concern me as I think they push the limits of what the user ban policy was meant to cover. Turbo is most definitely not an "obvious vandal" under the definition in the user ban policy, which was meant to apply only in cases where there can be absolutely zero doubt that the user is here for reasons other than writing a travel guide.
As stated previously, this user has been given multiple warnings and a further block was likely warranted, so my concern is less with the block than the fact that the process used to justify it strikes me as being a red flag that either our policies on this matter are being misinterpreted or misapplied and thus are in need to fixing. As to the point that these processes are frustrating, I think had we more closely followed the process laid out in Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks then it would have been far less frustrating for all involved; I hope people will begin using that process with difficult users in the future, or else suggest ways to make that process work better. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. It's important to make the distinction between malicious vandalism-only accounts (which the ban policy singles out as not needing a nomination) and unwanted / vandalizing edits. "Are they obviously here for reasons other than writing a travel guide?" seems a good question to ask, in that respect. No-one is suggesting that the Nazca/Nasca edits weren't unwanted. And yes, repeatedly making those edits against community consensus is a form of vandalism. Despite the frustrating nature of those edits however, they don't justify an indefinite ban without a nomination. In fact, this kind of unwanted edits is explicitly mentioned in our escalation blocks-policy, together with "repeated edit warring" and "repeated attacks on or harassment of other editors". The fact that some of Turbo's edits were of those categories is not a smoking gun to justify a unilateral indefinite ban: they are the smoking gun for escalating blocks. Considering the number of useful edits and the fact that several editors expressed a wish to try and work with him before, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest we're dealing with a vandalism-only account. We're all in agreement that a continuation of this behaviour would have resulted in a ban, but unless you count "gringo" as obvious and malicious racial slur (and from the comments we can at least conclude that several editors find that a stretch), policy simply called for the escalating blocks - followed by a ban. There's no point in discussing the intended meaning of "gringo" now, no-one is talking about abuse of sysop tools and no-one has even suggested that the ban should be reverted. However, as user bans without nomination should only be used in uncontroversial cases, I hope we can simply follow the escalating user blocks-procedure for such cases, in the future. Would the result have been different for this particular user? Probably not. That policy is there for good reasons though, and should protect us from jumping the gun in cases where the outcome is harder to predict. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
That's two people now who have claimed that use of a racial slur is grounds for an immediate indef-ban. That is not supported by the text of the policy; please explain how you come to this conclusion. Powers (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No, you're right; it's not mentioned in policy. It just seemed common sense to me that in case of truly malicious racial slur (I can imagine a few really unacceptable remarks), we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. It doesn't imply that any use of racial slur is grounds for an immediate indef-ban. In case of doubt, there should always be a nomination. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Adding my two cents on this discussion, as I was the one who hit the Block button both times on this guy: the issues that really mattered to me were his absolute inability and unwillingness to engage in constructive dialog ("it's hard to explain these things to a foreigner!") and the uncivil attitude: saying "there will be edit war, yes!" equals saying "I'm here to vandalize only!", period. Racial slurs are of minor importance here, really. Ibaman (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    I don't understand why every form of unwanted edit is labeled "vandalism". Powers (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Lieutenant, we're talking about a user who has literally, in print, declared edit war on Wikivoyage, to enforce "his" preferred breadcrumb structure and districtification of his home city. How could I in my heart find it tolerable?? Ibaman (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] Quote by User:AndreCarrotflower:

It's naive to think that things like "soft security" or weak-tea 3-day userbans are going to make users who come in with a combative and defiant attitude like Turbo's suddenly change into constructive contributors as if flipping a lightswitch. Human psychology doesn't work that way.

So, under what circumstances do you think we should apply our procedure of blocks of increasing length, or do you think we should throw it out, in favor of any admin unilaterally permabanning a problem user at any point and then merely notifying everyone after the fact? I've said before: I won't miss this user, but I don't feel that you've completely explained your views, nor the policy and practical implications of them.

By the way, I'm not sure "Gringo" is necessarily always a slur, but "stupid Gringo" is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Ikan, let me start by saying I really admire your literary, conversational and diplomatic skills, it's a privilege editing alongside such a gifted and humane person. I should say this more often. I admit, and regret, having overlooked, and not followed to the letter, our very complete and unambigous guidelines in Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits. Had I done that, much headache would have been spared. Having said that, I stand by my view that a user who willingly declares himself to be at edit war is automatically revealing his/her intentions in Wikivoyage as "malicious only" - let's give the much abused word "vandalism" a break, but at the same time, not stop calling a spade a spade. Ibaman (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, Ibaman. I really don't disagree with your point, but I still think my question merits an answer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Didn't I answer? I'm confortable and in total agreement with the procedure of blocks of increasing length, don't find any fault in it, am sorry to not have followed it in the heat of this moment, will study the guidelines more often and do my best not to make this mistake again. Ibaman (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, you answered, and I appreciate that, but I'd like to know what Andre's answer is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Ikan - To answer your question, I think the escalating user blocks scheme is fine for most garden-variety vandals, but I think we as a community need to take a more realistic view of the prospects of users like Turbo ever reforming into constructive contributors, and act accordingly. This is something that's played itself out several times on this site, and sown discord and misgivings among our community each time. For example, it seems that individual editors' fear of being a buzzkill often impels them to let problematic conduct slide or to look at cases like Turbo with rose-colored glasses, when in reality, many times the short-term unpleasantness of playing police(wo)man or banning a user who is clearly not interested in reforming is outweighed by the longer-term benefits that come with such a problem being solved. Or, we get bogged down in hair-splitting semantics like Powers' comments above which seek to circumscribe an excessively fine-grained definition of "vandalism", when a more sensible tack to take would be that bad faith is bad faith, and there's really very little differentiating to be done in terms of how to deal with what Powers considers a vandal versus some other category of problem editor.
As to the other half of the question: let's remember that the goal of the escalating user blocks procedure is to reform problem editors. That's fine and dandy in some cases, but a waste of time when the problem editor clearly has no interest in changing his ways. Being honest with ourselves, in Turbo's case, I don't think any of us would have allowed for a realistic possibility of any outcome other than what did in fact happen. To say "I know an unreformable problem editor when I see one" would be true, but that of course does not translate into good written policy here at Wikivoyage. Obviously we need something quantifiable. I don't know what that is, and thus don't have a concrete answer to this part of your question, but clearly there's a breakdown somewhere in the current procedure. If we do know an unreformable problem editor when we see one, there must be a defined reason or set of reasons why that is, and IMO that's a perfect starting point on which to base further refinements to our userban policy.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the answer, but under what imaginable circumstances would the escalating user blocks procedure inspire a problematic user to reform? Has that ever happened? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
If you read the third-from-the-bottom paragraph of Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks, the fact that the object of the blocks is to reform problem editors is made very explicit. I don't know of any cases where it's actually succeeded at that goal (though I haven't been especially active on the userban scene lately), and I see escalating user blocks as a compromise where all sides had to hold their nose a little bit rather than anything approaching an ideal solution, but it was a compromise that we had to struggle hard and wade through a lot of rancor to forge. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have any examples of anyone who was blocked for a week or longer and then reformed? If the blocks of increasing length are really designed to induce a problematic user to give up and stop posting, I think that's a bit pointless. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The escalating block process demonstrates to problem users the seriousness of their actions, but also provides a check on admins. As the above discussion shows, we don't always agree on the appropriate action to take with a difficult user, so the escalating block process ensures that admins can't unilaterally impose an indefinite ban, and that instead there is a process in place where multiple admins must justify escalating blocks based on a shared opinion that the user's continued editing is causing harm. If the suggestion is that problem users should just be indefinitely blocked at the first sign of trouble, I would oppose that as far too authoritarian for a site based on decision-making by consensus. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
No, not the first sign of trouble. My suggestion is that if someone has already been blocked for a day, then 3 days and then a week, at the first sign of trouble, perhaps a permaban should be triggered. The reason I am reconsidering my previous thoughts on this is User:AndreCarrotflower's remarks about human psychology.
What I'm not sure makes sense is to sometimes follow the procedures laid out in the escalating block process and other times, for someone to permaban the user and only notify everyone later. The correct procedure, it seems to me, would be to escalate the period of the block and then nominate the user for a permaban and have a discussion about it. "Waste of time" it may be, but if the justification is not blindingly obvious, the discussion should be held. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, we had an enthusiastic and problematic user of this kind on Portuguese WT (before the fork), who gave Texugo and me lots of work. He wanted his home city, Goiânia, to be the most complete and highlighted article in the whole shabang, and loved to insert fluffy, touty adjectives in every possible available space. It took a while to translate the necessary MoS pages to Portuguese for him to read; after that, he became really well-behaved and collaborative. I wish Turbo could have steered himself likewise; more than twice, I thought it possible. Unfortunately that was not the case. Ibaman (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know about him. By the way, had he been blocked for a week or more at any point? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


I'm not yet nominating this user for a ban, but I believe this to be Turbo8000 evading a block. Not only has the behavior been similar, but look at User talk:NeoMaps#Please explain in particular. User contributions, User talk:NeoMaps. Also, note the discussion and links at User talk:Ikan Kekek#NeoMaps. I am willing to give this "new" user more rope with which to hang himself, but I think his first block, when it's considered necessary, should be indefinite. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As I told you before, I am not Turbo8000. NeoMaps (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the user's contribution history as yet, but it should be noted that Turbo8000 is now globally locked as a sock of a quite prolific puppetmaster who was engaged in extensive crosswiki vandalism. Further block evasion would not surprise me at all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Time to ban[edit]

The latest attempt to unilaterally change Nazca to Nasca is surely evidence enough that NeoMaps is indeed Turbo8000 / the Peruvian sockpuppet user. Does an indefban even need to be proposed, or can it just be implemented so we can be finally rid of this pest? Bear in mind the user is already blocked over on Wikiviajes. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes Done. Again, Turbo8000 is a globally locked crosswiki vandal. All that's necessary for an indefban in a case like this is confirmation that the account is indeed a sockpuppet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Huzzah! Would someone also be able to move Nasca back to where it should be (with a z), or even better advise me on how to do it so I can do it myself in future? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Scrap that request, I worked it out :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it is Turbo8000 . Indefban support. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad that didn't take too long. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


Really obvious block evasion by Turbo. See Talk:Spanish phrasebook. Would someone like to create a filter? Otherwise, be ready for more IP block evasion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. Not sure how to write a filter for this one.... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to make clear that I already blocked this IP for 1 month for block evasion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
And now, User192.71.213.159 was also blocked for block evasion... Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
How was that IP user able to evade semi-protection? Should we discuss that security issue on another page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think semi-protection extends to an article's talk page. That is necessary so legitimate unregistered users and (in the case of a higher level protection) non-admins can still have an input on an article's direction while the page is protected from would-be vandals. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Tranny Slayer[edit]

Firstly a totally inappropriate user name, secondly vandalism such as this or this Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)