Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Niggling edit warring in Agra[edit]

If you have the time, have a look at the history of the Agra article. I think this is once again the never-registered dynamic IP editor who insists on having the exact wordings his way and doesn't really explain anything except that everyone else's English must be bad because his is good. It's a minor point, but "pretty good" or "relatively good", if true, are better than no description or "reasonable", which could refer to price, and he's never explained what's wrong with "Comesum", which from web searching looks like a brand name of food courts to me. I could be wrong, but he hasn't explained, and should we really let an insistent dynamic IP edit warrior get his way on every little point he insists on, just because? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

A clear reason for the edit was finally given, so as far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed, unless the dynamic IP editor would like to follow up with action based on his remarks at User talk:Ikan Kekek#Agra. If he's right that I mistakenly removed any useful, non-touty content that wasn't added by a vandal, I hope he restores it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I do remember this problem editor. Ikan, if this editor pops up again with the same pattern of behavior, I think it would be fine to employ the Telstra-vandal approach of reverting any contributions on sight, regardless of merit, unless and until s/he is willing to cooperate rather than angrily insisting on a preferred wording, accusing other editors of touting, not knowing what they're talking about, etc. while simultaneously refusing to provide a reasoning behind his/her edits. (I did not find the edit summary of the diff you cited to be terribly convincing.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought the final summary was convincing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably the same user. Look at them being annoying here and here. No action should be taken now, but if the behavior recurs, a short block would be appropriate, because not only are they edit warring and engaging in a puerile game of "so are you"; they're also being unhelpful to readers, seemingly out of arrogance and inflexibility. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Post script. Draw your own conclusions, but watch for more such behavior, keeping in mind that this is a dynamic IP user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Corgoloin article[edit]

From the article history, it would appear to be a Telstra article. Nothing in the article is obviously wrong to someone not familiar with the village, but I will post to the talk pages of the 3 seeming Telstra users and delete the article when as usual, no reply is forthcoming. So tedious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Starting to understand your annoyance. I will be in Brisbane later in the year, should I go and have a personal word with him :-) ? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
If you can find the individual. [smirk]. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
With usernames like that, it's definitely Telstra. I understand (and secretly admire) the fact that you still want to be fair and give him a chance to talk, but he's had many such chances in the past. To save yourself the tedium, you could just block and revert such obvious Telstras on sight. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
As a counterpoint, though, please have a look at User talk:Arabia619. That said, even in cases of a block and deletion, everything can be reversed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fair enough. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits by User:Arabia619[edit]

Should we propose Benson (Vermont) and Bingham for deletion? For background, please see User talk:Arabia619 and user contributions. This user's M.O. is very Telstra-like, so even if it's not a sockpuppet account, as this user vehemently denied on my user talk page, I think it is probably time to delete these two useless stubs, suspend the user's posting privileges for an initial period of 1 day and explain on the user's talk page that this is because of a lack of response to messages by User:Traveler100 and me asking the user to flesh out the useless stubs they created. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes agree. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Seconded. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
2 articles deleted and 1-day initial block executed. Now for user talk page message. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Good call. Ground Zero (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

How many of the new users are Telstra?[edit]

Lots of new users with the profile "Account with unregistered email, Mobile edit, Mobile web edit", including many edits to articles about Australia. Not all of them follow the most common naming pattern. Is there any way to reliably find out which ones are block-evading? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

PenHolder0230 and IceKingTheSecond are Bisbane Tesla users. The Patchewollock page was created by someone elsewhere in Australia, your Tesla friend does not appear to be smart enough to hid where he is or moving about physically or virtually. To find out should really ask someone at the wiki foundation who can check the user name against IP addresses being used, can then trace where they are logging on. Maybe we should request some of Wikivoyage admins have this privilege. However my feeling with this user is the best tactic is to ignore. Leave the pages as they are, do not feed the trolls. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The Telstra user has sometimes seemed to be posting from other parts of Australia like Adelaide. I'm unconvinced the Patchewollock page is not Telstra. Minus the images, it looks just like that user's work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

[unindent] This is really annoying. Dozens of sockpuppets who make one edit apiece. Can we block all Telstra addresses with unregistered email addresses? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to renew this question. Can we please block all Telstra addresses with unregistered email addresses? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Assuming that is possible, I would support a trial block to see if it actually decreases the number of 'Telstra' incidents. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism/graffiti[edit]

First, I'm not too keen on the idea of slow reverts for vandalism. If this website was not been viewed by anyone except us, that would be different. However, considering the millions of people that view the Wikivoyage website, waiting twenty minutes or so to revert a vandal's edit could be troublesome, especially if they added inappropriate content. Should we add a sentence or so to the vandalism section saying that, if a vandal's edit is inappropriate or obvious on the website, it should be reverted as soon as possible?

Second, I don't think we should have the graffiti wall. It's not very helpful and only seems to be asking for trouble. Selfie City (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your first paragraph. Everyone knows vandalism should be reverted as soon as possible. Just revert it whenever you see it. Changing language somewhere won't increase the speed of reverts.
On the second, how easy is it to avoid "Graffiti wall"? I suppose I should look at edits there in case people are posting racist or otherwise extremely offensive stuff, but it's really easy to ignore. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
On the first, I think the article we're on the talk page of says to not revert edits quickly. On the second, no-one has to go there, but wouldn't it just be better not to have a graffiti wall at all? Does it really serve much purpose? Selfie City (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Ikan Kekek, I found the text (vandalism section):

"Vandalism is when a user deliberately replaces page content in a way that damages or destroys an article. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between vandalism and graffiti. However, vandals will tend to ignore pleas to stop their activities. Persistent and non-obvious vandalism activity should be posted on Project:Vandalism in progress so everyone can help repair the damage. Slow reverts, that is, waiting a while to remove the vandal's changes, can be very effective in discouraging vandals by boring them." Selfie City (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I see. That language is vestigial from the ancient origins of Wikivoyage, during those naive days when there were few edits and it was believed that everything could be handled by dialogue without blocking anyone's posting privileges. The fact that I wasn't aware of the language shows the degree to which it is currently ignored. We absolutely should remove this text. My proposed substitute:
Vandalism is the deliberate replacement or deletion of page content in a way that obviously damages or destroys an article. Vandalism should be reverted immediately, and users engaging in a pattern of vandalism should be subjected to either a short or long-to-indefinite block, depending on how serious and extensive the vandalism is.
(Parenthetically, you'll see that I got rid of the "Vandalism is when" language, because it isn't "when".) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Good, Ikan Kekek. I noticed this before and I think the old version would have worked when vandalism was just someone typing in a few additional letters without any bad motives or reason; however, when you consider modern vandals like Willy on Wheels, leaving his/her vandalism could have disastrous results. With modern vandals, being slow to revert will only help them because they don't get bored, they just keep going until the whole website is gone. Selfie City (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone object to my proposed edit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Full support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Ground Zero (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Supporting the edit, although I don't think it's a substantial change — ArticCynda (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Support. I think that the slow revert only made sense for very minor vandalism, such as adding a spoof listing. AlasdairW (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit. Please tweak the language any way you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Rash of repeating characters edits[edit]

Is there any way to make such edits impossible with a filter? It's getting annoying to keep blocking and reverting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked at Recent Changes and saw that it was mostly IP addresses making the random edits. Maybe you could ask for a rangeblock at the stewards' noticebord? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global (Sorry, I don't know anything about filters.) Rilancia (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Telstra articles[edit]

Hi, everyone. Are you keeping on top of this?

Zimnitsa

Moulay Bousselham

Both pretty clear examples to me. I think I handled most of the deletions of Telstra articles. In the absence of someone with technical expertise blocking all Telstra IPs with unregistered email addresses (and why hasn't this been done?), are the rest of you going to take care of this task now that I don't feel like doing it anymore, or is this stuff just going to linger? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not just ignore him. Feeding the toll has not worked. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked at Zimnitsa before. It is a real place, but it's still an odd place to start an article about and according to WP (I think that's where I looked it up), there's another village with the same name. Is the Zimnitsa article started on WV about w:Zimnitsa, Yambol Province or w:Zimnitsa, Dobrich Province? Selfie City (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
On that basis, I've deleted Zimnitsa. I'm going to delete the other one too. I think the point in deleting these poor articles is to discourage this vandal, rather than spending our time trying to make the articles worth keeping. The Telstra vandal should not be able to direct the work of Wikivoyagers - he's demostrated that he is not interested in working with us. Ground Zero (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Extend the IP address block maximum to six months[edit]

This is de facto being done already (go through Special:Log/block and you will see what I mean), and while in most cases it's best not to do 6–month blocks due to IP address changes, etc., stopping vandals for a time longer than a few months could help us bring down IP address vandalism, which has been pretty high lately. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Question - Although you're right that it has been high, most of it is coming from the same Chorley-based person, using different IPs of course. He may or may not be linked to other main vandal (Fuerdai), who usually makes a new account. But the vandal who keeps blanking pages occasionally makes an account too.
The reason for saying this is, by my estimation, we "only" have one or two regular vandals, discounting Telstra, who seems to have quietened down in the past few weeks (I guess even vandals take a holiday now and then...)
So, my question to the community, in light of this information, is whether lengthening the IP ban is a good idea? I myself have not decided (even though I am certainly guilty of flouting the limit in the recent past).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Do we have someone on board who knows how to create and adjust filters? It could be useful for that vandal from Chorley and Fuerdai. User:Andrewssi2 used to handle the Telstra filters, but he's right now having a wikibreak. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
He's taking a very long Wikibreak — maybe an infinite one, so I don't think we should look to him to deal with vandal filters. The IP address problem is still going, by the way. The level of IP address vandalism means that we need to keep a close watch on IP address edits for now, IMO. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, it was not my intention to take an 'infinite wikibreak', but like going to the gym you need to keep these things up. :) Will be back once I realign my life schedule.
If you have a specific request around a block then please just let me know. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Vulcandor[edit]

From Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress

Special:Contributions/Vulcandor edits the same types of pages as Telstra does, but posted a message on a talk page which is unlike Telstra. Also prefers US spelling instead of Australian. The edits themselves are a mixed bag. Gizza (roam) 00:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Telstra is often identified by minor edits. But just because a user makes minor edits doesn't make them Telstra. I'd wait a while and see how good Vulcandor is at speaking English. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's worth pointing out that a new user who has been demonstrated not to be Telstra could still be another vandal. ARR8 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we should keep an eye on that user. The Flag article is - to put it mildly - at the very edge of the possible coverage of a travel guide... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
We watch all users who are not Autopatrollers. I think we should give this one the same latitude we give other users. I'll admit that when I saw the title of that article on the U.S. flag, I thought it would be irrelevant, but when I actually looked at the content of the article, I saw it was clearly a travel article. I'd actually propose archiving this thread for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
[redacted] --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A bit like "youknowwho"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts) Agreed with Ikan Kekek. Overall, it's a good thing that we're keeping our guard up regarding vandalism and keeping in mind the behavior patterns of the repeat offenders we've been seeing lately. But we have to balance that with not biting newbies. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the new articles the user has started, there may very well be an innocent explanation: for instance, witness Talk:Travelling with Asperger's and autism#Congrats (an article created several months ago by a different user) in which s/he thanks us for having coverage of this topic and self-identifies as an Asperger's sufferer, which certainly would explain the subsequent creation of various mental health-related articles. Overall, to me it seems like there are some similarities in behavior patterns between this user and various vandals we've been dealing with in the recent past, but also enough in the way of differences that I think it's warranted to continue giving this editor the benefit of the doubt. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

[redacted] Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

[redacted] Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
[redacted] Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
[redacted] Ground Zero (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
[redacted] --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
[redacted] --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
[redacted] --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I've had the luxury of not being involved with many of this year's vandalism conversations, and as such I'll just say that they don't appear to be Telstra or any other vandal I've experienced. They also responded to my concern around the 9/11 article. [redacted], but that shouldn't be a problem as long as they stay within policy. I would also say to give benefit of the doubt Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I apologize in advance if this sounds testy. Can we limit discussion of patterns of vandal activity? ARR8 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please, for God's sake. Stop discussing vandals' MO. It encourages them, and it gives them ideas. When it's obvious, as in this case, we block, we undo, we ignore. I don't apologise for sounding testy, because this has been said before, on more than one occasion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sure. We've identified now what was going on, so no more discussion is necessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I have redacted the sensitive content and hidden the details of the diffs. Please remember that we have vandals monitoring this page and modifying their behavior based on what they know of our countervandalism tactics. Let's please avoid stuffing beans up our noses. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the redaction and beans and all of that, but will point that that during the discussion, it wasn't obvious (at least not to me) who we were dealing with. Ground Zero (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. I seem to suck at recognizing these sockpuppets, whereas I'm good at recognizing another vandal's sockpuppets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Ground Zero on that one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem user[edit]

Hi, everyone. I suggest you all watch User:TerrierChicken very closely. I'm thisclose to nominating this ostensibly new user for a userban. User contributions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, although it seems that for now the user has stopped editing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Never mind... --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I just had a look all of the user's contributions. TerrierChicken has been extremely condescending and rude. Doesn't quite understand that everybody is free to voice their opinion on a talk page. There is no such thing as getting "too involved". Based on my experience, users with an ego as large as TC don't improve over time. I'd support plunging forward and banning the user now. And in any case, the Middle East and West Asia aren't entirely interchangeable (the Middle East can include Egypt and European Turkey for one). Gizza (roam) 03:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Just added to the user ban nominations. Hopefully we can make it quick... --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Another remnant of old policy[edit]

Check this out: "In general, a user should not be blocked from editing their own user Talk page." We often block vandals from editing their own user talk page, and I think the text should be changed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not get too heavy handed with tackling unwanted edits. There are cases with abusive vandals, and the regular pains in the ***, were it is warranted but in general user talk pages should be left open for them to defend their contributions. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, in the cases of "ordinary" vandals, we should absolutely not block them from editing the user talk page. I'm thinking of the recurring ones. I was going to post an example of what we could change it to, but I couldn't think of the right wording to use. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with that phrase. In general, users should not be blocked from using their user talk page. Spambots, severe vandals and the like are exceptions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: maybe we could add a sentence explaining the exception. Sure, we know the exceptions, but policy is what defines the site. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Leave the text as it is, because it's accurate, but add a further sentence explaining the exceptions. How about: "At the discretion of an administrator, the talk pages of spam bots, long-term vandals and abusers may be protected from all edits by users without admin rights."--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, that's what I was looking for. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
That sounds good to me too. Thank you TT. Ground Zero (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I am good with that. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've added the new sentence.

Actually, though, there's another sentence in that paragraph that surprises me: "In the sequence of blocks, no one administrator should make consecutive blocks." Does it matter who makes the blocks? We don't have that many administrators making blocks for touts around here, and if there's only one around at the time, it makes sense for them to add a longer block. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I can understand why that sentence was added, but I disagree with it. I think it matters only in cases where someone could perceive that a particular admin might have a personal gripe against a user. So maybe "any admin who has any reason to fear the appearance of a conflict of interest or personal involvement with a problematic user should seek the help of disinterested admins in determining whether or how long to block a user", but I'm not sure this kind of common-sense thing really needs to be stated in black and white on a policy or guideline page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
That restriction would make sense in a larger community with more admins, but not here. If removing it turns into a problem, then we could add Ikan Kekek's qualifier. Ground Zero (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
So everyone's okay with me removing the sentence? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It could be useful for cases where there's a disagreement among admins whether someone's edits are vandalism/touting or constructive edits. Fortunately, this hasn't been an issue here on WV so far. So go ahead and remove the sentence. ϒψιλον (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
There were disagreements about Frank. Remember, Ypsilon? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but thankfully, even as there are more vandals nowadays, nobody of them behaves like Frank & co. ϒψιλον (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
We don't let things go that far. But I think that's the reason the policy of handing things off to other admins was started. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've gone through the histories of articles and talk pages and studied the history of W. Frank. Gives me the impression that every problem user (counting Frank, 118nzp, TTCF, etc. as one user) is different. Vandals are generally the same, because they imitate each other a lot of the time, but you just think of LM, AC, and Frank and they're all different — but generally in the same bracket of "problem users", who are often even more problematic than open vandals. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Protect 'high-ranking' articles from being moved[edit]

In light of a recent vandal's actions and the continued efforts to impose eSwatini on us, it occurs to me that, in almost all cases, there's no good reason for anyone to move country articles to pages with different names. In fact, the only people who want to do this are either vandals or new users ignorant of how things work around here regarding Wikivoyage:Naming conventions and Wikivoyage:Consensus. Countries don't change their names very often, and neither for that matter do most cities. When they do, we always discuss whether policy allows us to follow suit and change the name of our article, something which rarely happens.

So I propose that all continent- and country-level articles be indefinitely protected from being moved by all users but administrators. I would suggest the same for a limited selection of high-profile huge city articles - perhaps only those which feature in a continent's 'list of nine', and for significant project pages such as this one. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I would support the idea of protecting Continent/Country articles from renaming. I'm not sure however you could protect the 'list of nine' without locking the entire article to all contributors? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't explain myself adequately: I meant we should protect the articles of each city which features in a continent's list of nine cities in the same way, i.e. prevent them from being moved.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Continents and countries — yes, not so sure about cities. I'd say capital cities of "major" countries (how to define those is a difficult question — maybe at least 50 million people) should be protected, and the same should go for other cities with at least, maybe, 5 million people in the metro area.
For example, on the list of cities in Chad, not all of the ones on the top 9 are large cities. I wouldn't say all those should be protected, in fact, probably none need to be. On the other hand, Beijing and Shanghai should be protected.
However, I don't think this issue is as important as people may think. According to Wikivoyage:Autoconfirmed users, you have to be autoconfirmed to be able to move pages. Most vandals don't have that, the recent one was an exception. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Countries, continents, and current DotMs/OtBPs/FTTs for starters, without prejudice to whether it's also appropriate to move-protect other articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Countries, continents, and current DotMs/OtBPs/FTTs sound good. Rest when specific need identified. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I think also the nine main cities as suggested above could be protected, others as needed but not permanently. I suppose only minor cities should be moved without discussion, so the protection has very little influence on normal work flow. On the other hand a move is as easy as undo as any other change (for seasoned users), so I'd err on the side of not protecting unnecessarily. --LPfi (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've started with the UK, USA, China, and India. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've done the continents (with the exception of Antarctica) and the countries, along with a few particularly large cities. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I've done every country in Europe, including the ones that aren't really proper countries.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Antarctica done.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Move protection is usually a good thing, but don't spend too much time doing it, as it's in many cases not that important, as per LPfi's remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I am happy to do a lot of the work, but would appreciate it if some of those who agree it's a good idea chipped in as well (on that note, thanks to SelfieCity). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an informal division of labor between all of us volunteers, based on what we feel like doing or feel is more important. I haven't had to move articles back too often, so I think that proactive move protection might not be the best use of my (or our) time. But I won't get in anyone's way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not telling anyone to do something they don't want to do, just asking for willing volunteers to help. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Filter[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I have created a new filter that I think some other admins should check. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

What to do with pages created by banned accounts[edit]

Swept in from the pub

For banned accounts that are not "vandals" exactly, there is some discussion in the abuse filers about whether to delete pages created by them (or sockpuppets) or to let the pages remain. A lot of this concern has been around the Igls OTBP nomination.

Personally, I think we should keep the content because our main mission is to serve the traveler. However, I think any articles created by, for example, AC's IP addresses should be kept, but only at a low profile. In other words, pages created by such a user should not give them too much attention. I think it is a poor idea to publicize these pages too much, if you see what I mean. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The other issue is that edits by users whose work has proven to be unreliable in the past, due to ideologically-based distortions of facts, need to be verified with extra care. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
As I said in the OtBP nomination for Igls, by just looking at the article it could've been written by any "normal" editor and therefore it should not be deleted, even if it's not featured. If someone has time, it might be a good idea to have a look at the other articles the IP has contributed to, and anything even vaguely problematic should be deleted and hidden, but articles that there's nothing wrong with should not be deleted. ϒψιλον (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that if an article is good and well-developed (not like the stubs by the Telstra man), deleting it would actually be an act of vandalism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to introduce topic bans[edit]

There has been a lot of discussion about applying the principle of the Wikipedia policy on topic bans here in Wikivoyage, and it seems like we should clarify our thinking on this through a specific discussion on whether or not to adopt a version of this policy in Wikivoyage in order to settle the discussion at least for now. I have not been involved in the previous discussions on topic bans, but in the interest of moving the discussion along, I will step forward and make the proposal.

Proposed policy on topic bans[edit]

(Adapted from w:WP:TBAN.)

The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikivoyage. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "scuba diving", this editor is not only forbidden from editing the article Scuba diving, but also everything else that has to do with scuba diving, such as:
  • Scuba diving-related articles, and their talk pages;
  • Scuba diving-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with scuba diving;
  • Discussions or suggestions about scuba diving-related topics anywhere on Wikivoyage, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about scuba diving, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).

Discussion[edit]

@Inas, Ikan Kekek, WhatamIdoing, AndreCarrotflower: @Mx. Granger, LPfi, ThunderingTyphoons!, SelfieCity:

  • Support as proposer. As Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Last resorts states, escalating user blocks and user bans are last resorts. It would be useful for us to have another spanner in our toolkit — one that is less severe than a user block or a user ban. A user block or ban can send the message that the user is not wanted in Wikivoyage. A topic ban sends the message that the user is wanted in Wikivoyage, but certain behaviour is not. Ground Zero (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I hope we never have to apply this kind of draconian measure (or never again, as we tried unsuccessfully to apply it to Frank), but I agree with Ground Zero that it should be available as a possible solution in extreme situations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Ikan Kekek on this issue. However, I think there are cases where this is preferred to blocking an account. I think we should make it clear, however, that a warning should be issued to the user before such a ban is applied, in all cases. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Warnings are always appropriate before applying any sanction on otherwise constructive editors. (There's no need to warn vandals that were going to come to their homes and rip out their internet connections.) Ground Zero (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I support the creation of a policy page such as Wikivoyage:Topic bans as a central source of information regarding when it's appropriate to institute a topic ban. But, as I contended previously, the question of whether or not we should allow them is moot, as Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun#Taking action already allows for what de facto amounts to a topic ban ("If talk page discussions fail to address the situation, consider the options outlined at Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits. In general, if repeated warnings go unheeded then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours, may be considered"). Those who are opposed to topic bans on Wikivoyage should advocate for the rescinding of that policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that such a page should be created. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower, yes, you've made this clear in other discussions. Others don't agree with you. This proposal is an attempt to break this logjam by getting a decision on this issue explicitly. Bringing the issue of this being implicit to this page only distracts from the discussion at hand. Ground Zero (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, then how am I supposed to vote exactly? From my viewpoint, the question doesn't make sense: a "support" vote would be a meaningless reaffirmation of an already-in-effect policy, and in the event of an "oppose" vote we'd have two policies that directly contradict each other. I realize that the question of what other possible way there is to interpret Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun#Taking action is not germane to this vote, but it's one I'd really like answered. Also, it's not necessarily the case that everyone who's reading this is also aware of the parallel discussion in the pub (in fact, I see at least one username here that I didn't see over there) so my own viewpoint on the matter is not necessarily common knowledge. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't presume to tell you how to vote. If this proposal is adopted, then your question, I believe, is moot. I don't want to see this discussion get sidetracked by your on-going dispute with Inas, which is what we are trying to put to rest here. If you want to continue the debate on that point, please take it elsewhere. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower, maybe I missed it, but I see nothing about topic bans at that link. If you have an objection to having discussions on proposals to make guidelines unambiguous and fully clear, I'd have to agree with Ground Zero that that's not helpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I do have concerns about what happens vis-à-vis Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun#Taking action should this proposal not pass, but I'm also sensitive to the need not to sidetrack the discussion, and since it looks like the "support" votes are going to carry the day anyway, I guess we can cross that bridge when and if we come to it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would exclude the user's own user page. There must be a way of the user seeking clarification on the ban "Does a Scuba diving ban prevent writing about swimming in Beaches?" AlasdairW (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I feel sure we could deal with these kinds of questions reasonably on a case-by-case basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this amendment to the proposal. Banning discussion on the user's talk page is something we can discuss if they ever becomes a problem. Ground Zero (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I've edited the draft policy to try to address this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that edit to the draft policy does address the question of clarification. I would prefer that we went a bit further and normally excluded the editor's user pages and VFD, with the possibility of extending the ban to include these if needed. Unless other editors are aware of these bans, it may appear odd that a particular user is not commenting on the deletion of a particular Scuba Diving page, when the user is active on other pages. AlasdairW (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
People can be disruptive in Vfd, so why should there be any special guidelines relating to that page? No-one will ever use topic bans without very strong reasons to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Partial blocks will be an incredibly useful tool: I'd like to think that a topic ban may be instituted with the cooperation of the editor receiving the ban, but if it is not and the editor cannot resist from posting about ahem scuba diving, then a partial block can be employed to attempt to ensure compliance in a much less drastic way than blocking someone from editing altogether. This will also lend weight to the idea that "the user is wanted in Wikivoyage, but certain behaviour is not." Plus, the escalating user blocks really will be a last resort, as they should be.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the link, and sorry I didn't. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the drafting of a new policy creating topic bans, and thank Ground Zero for starting this conversation. Sincerely, I hope it's never used. I'd also like to 'third' Alasdair's proposed amendment; for me, userspace is sovereign space where we can put what we like, and I'm uncomfortable with dictating what someone can and can't write in their own space, unless they're flouting policy or breaking the law.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Frank & co were disruptive in more than one way, so I don't know how much use this policy would have been in that case. It could maybe have been of some use to take measures against ArcticCynda right at the beginning of their antisemitic edits... or not, hard to tell afterwards. Thankfully, it's not every day the community needs to deal with such serious cases.
If topic bans do serve a need, I'm certainly not going to oppose. It's just that if a user has made problematic edits to the extent that they need to be warned or it needs to be discussed in the pub or on their talk page, and they still continue with such edits after several warnings, then we're usually talking about someone whose activity here on WV is largely made up of such controversial or otherwise unwanted edits. Also, by continuing they demonstrate a disregard for WV's policies and other users' opinion. In such cases I think a full block would be in order, just as we've done before. Ypsilon (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Preliminary oppose. I am not opposed to asking people to refrain from discussing topics where they cannot avoid creating drama. And it is probably possible to enforce such a wish by user blocks, as AndreCarrotflower has been saying. What I think I will oppose is formalising that route, as I am afraid it will make it easier to take action instead of solving the underlying problems. If the policy is going to be used once in a decade, do we really need a formal policy? I am afraid we will start discussing whether the policy should be used at a stage where we otherwise still would be trying to solve the dispute itself, creating the drama we wish to avoid. I suppose the policy will be used against long-time valuable contributors, who during the topic ban may feel as being second class citizens. If the policy is to be accepted, I think it should be temporary, perhaps first 3 months (to calm down the situation), then perhaps a year, if needed. Clearly, the user should be very careful editing on the topic in question also if the ban is never put in effect, or if the time period has elapsed. The ban is there to help a user who has difficulties making a sound judgement in this specific area, and the sound judgement is required regardless of formal measures. --LPfi (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to respond to something earlier in the thread, I want to say that I do not think a topic ban is appropriate in the case of bigoted edits like those made by ArticCynda and Libertarianmoderate. On one hand, I'm opposed to excessive political correctness, but on the other hand, I also think that as a community, we need to take a strong stand against any sort of bigotry, and any editor who inserts bigoted content into our articles should just be blocked outright. The dog2 (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we now have consensus? From here, I can only see the discussion being forgotten if we sit around for a month waiting for more people to comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion has only been open for four days. Now that Inas has weighed in, we have input for the editors who have been involved in the discussion previously, which is important. There have been a lot of amendments proposed, so it is not clear what the consensus is. Is this part of Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits or a stand-alone policy? What about temporary topic bans? Does it extend to the user's talk page? What warnings are appropriate? I think we need the proposal to be restated with this issues addressed. I don't want to do it because the original proposal was mine, and I don't want people to think I am pushing any particular agenda here. Ground Zero (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, considering the new developments, we shouldn't close the discussion. I was worried that the discussion would just die, and no action would be taken, but clearly that's no longer a concern. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Later. It seems to me that using such bans in the case of W.Frank, etc would have saved us much angst. And could have saved several valuable contributors over the years. However, I'm concerned in the current environment that this topic ban has been threatened for really quite mild discussion in the pub. I would recommend letting this one sit for a while. If it's really needed, we'll come back to it. --Inas (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It was suggested by one user and batted down by, I think, everybody else, demonstrating that such a nomination would have failed at present. I'd have to say that a topic ban for W.Frank would have failed, because he brought his pet topics up anywhere and everywhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I entirely agree with you Ikan Kekek. There was a time when we were quite absurdly tolerant of people who had no purpose here but to disrupt, with some misplaced mission to "convert" them. And the best way of dealing with W.Frank/Alice would have just been a complete ban from the time that was clear. Topic bans came up in the context of one user suggesting that we list right wing/left wing propensities of media. It was clear quickly that this was never going to get consensus, but nevertheless a topic ban was proposed - that was clearly unnecessary. --Inas (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I really appreciate your being here because you have a long memory of the history of the site and did a lot to make it what it is today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you look at the case study I brought up in the thread below, the two users were banned from interacting with each other. Perhaps we should consider also adding that in to topic bans just in case we need it. I hope it never comes to that here, but if we see that the interaction between two users has come down to personal feuds and/or issues of ethnic/national pride to the point that they can't have a civil discussion with each other, but are otherwise constructive and civil when interacting with other editors, such an action will be appropriate. Of course this should be very carefully implemented, and should not just be used to save us the effort of evaluating the two parties in the dispute fairly. If Editor A is insisting on making nationalistic/ethnocentric edits while Editor B is pushing back on that to conform with our policy of non-partisanship and being fair, we should obviously take the side of Editor B. The dog2 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point. I agree that an interaction ban should be a possibility. I think it could be applied by any admin for an initial period of 1 week and then should require a user ban nomination and a consensus to apply for a month if required, that once approved could be extended without further nominations if the users subsequently resume sniping at each other, with additional possible periods of 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and indefinite. But I don't think it can be enforced except through a demand for the participants to stop interacting with each other, backed up by full-site blocks if necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this consistent? Here we're talking about an admin applying this ban unilaterally - but down below we're saying even a temporary ban would require consensus. Can someone actually put some words around what is being proposed here - so we can discuss something tangible? --Inas (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it has to be a very serious case for an admin to unilaterally apply it, even for say, a day. For instance, if it is very clear that the two users are only engaging in personal attacks and no longer debating anything substantive, then we can have an admin unilaterally implement a short one while the community discusses whether and how long the interaction ban needs to be extended for. The dog2 (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. If you like, the initial period under such circumstances could be 3 days, and if we want to be consistent with the proposal on topic bans, the further lengths of interaction bans could be 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and indefinite. But I do think that it's reasonable for a single admin to be able to execute an interaction ban unilaterally in an extreme situation, except do we have the software to force such a ban, anyway? Probably not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the way to do it will be for an admin to post on their talk page "You are banned from interacting with X for Y amount of time.", and the existing system of escalating blocks can be applied for violation of the ban. The dog2 (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
That has the virtue of simplicity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: assuming we go ahead with the idea of topic bans and we create a "Wikivoyage"-space page with information about topic bans, should it be a guideline, policy, or neither? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


Temporary bans[edit]

  • Comment: Should we add a possibility for temporary topic bans? That will allow the user to have a cooling off period and hopefully contribute constructively once more once passions have died down. The dog2 (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with this, definitely. About userspace, since some people are addressing that: Users can't just put anything they like there. Deliberately antagonistic content shouldn't be anywhere on the site. For example, someone who chose to put up a manifesto attacking moderation on their user page would see that deleted, with a warning put on their user talk page (I can think of one counterexample, and that's because it's so old that doing anything about it would unnecessarily renew conflict). Similarly, if while patrolling recent changes, one of us came across obviously racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted content on a user page, we should delete the page and post a warning on their user talk page. And of course we also delete touting user pages. I guess all of this constitutes violating policy or guidelines, but it does mean that user pages are not quite sovereign or inviolable sacred spaces, and I'd therefore recommend ratcheting down the rhetoric on this a bit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree on temporary topic bans. Also, I agree that user spaces should be monitored to a reasonable extent. However, if someone has a topic ban on scuba diving, should they be allowed to write about (or even mention) scuba diving in their userspace? That's a harder question for me to answer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree that such action is appropriate. Thanks for the response. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In that case, I will support it so long as there is a provision for temporary bans written in, and if bans are implemented only after consulting with the community and arriving at a consensus except in the most serious of cases. The dog2 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to have the provision for temporary bans explicitly written in if possible. Could we apply the same system of escalating blocks to topic bans like we do for regular blocks? The dog2 (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • We could, but I can't see starting with a 3-day topic ban as useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point there. Would perhaps one month be a good starting point? Maybe one month, three months and six months can be used as the escalating series before going permanent. How does that sound? The dog2 (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps (though not for IP addresses) a one-year or two-year ban could work as another option. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I think The dog2's ideas of 1-month, 3-month, 6-month and permanent topic bans are better than 1-year or 2-year bans, but it's worth discussing this further. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, how would escalating topic bans work exactly? The user is banned from talking about scuba diving for one month, but then what - they are allowed to resume scuba-related edits unconditionally, or they have to keep censoring themselves? Under what circumstances does a longer ban get imposed on them? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This proposed policy aims to settle a dispute. It isn't likely to be used very often, if it all. Maybe we should try out the basic version to see if just the threat of its application is enough to get persistent editors to back off, before we spend a whole bunch to time building out a complex policy structure. Ground Zero (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@ThunderingTyphoons!: As I said, sometimes a user may just need a cooling-off period to let passions die down to be constructive on the topic again. In such instances, a temporary ban will help. I think permanent bans should only be used if it's clear that that user can never be constructive on the topic in question. The dog2 (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ground Zero—let's start with a simple policy and add complexity only as needed. The duration of temporary topic bans can be decided on a case-by-case basis; we don't need to worry that in this abstract and theoretical initial discussion.
As a side note, I dislike the language of a "permanent" ban. I think "indefinite" is better, with the idea that the ban can in principle be reversed if the community agrees it's time to give the user another chance. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
In that case, how about we add a statement along the lines of "Topic bans can be temporary or indefinite, the duration of which will be determined by consensus from the community". The dog2 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd be fine with starting with indefinite topic bans, and then considering shorter-term bans at a later time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Just as a reference, look at this thread for how a discussion for a temporary topic ban was instituted as a case study [1], when a Japanese and a Korean editor were basically locked in a dispute fuelled by ethnic/national conflicts, and a temporary topic ban of six months was instituted to get both editors to cool their passions when it came to articles about Japan or Korea, and to stop interacting with each other in order to allow passions to cool. The dog2 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for giving this example. The problem I see in that case, however, is a method (topic ban) that would have worked well, but a long period of intense discussion over the ban did not really help the community. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. How would this work? Single admin? Any user? Consensus? --Inas (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Reply: Topic bans would require a nomination by any user at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations, just like any other user ban. If that's not clear in the draft document, it needs to be made clear. And absolutely, a consensus would be required. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay - this would need to be made clear for temporary bans - because a although we need nominations and consensus for a ban, we clearly don't need those for temporary bans. --Inas (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I think in the case of topic bans, we should need a consensus for a temporary ban, because to be meaningful, a temporary topic ban should be for an initial period of 1 month. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy to have 1 month as an initial period written in. The dog2 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
While I wouldn't mind an initial ban period of a month for a user whose history of contentious edits is relatively short, I think the background of a case should be taken into account. If, for instance, a longstanding user has been repeatedly making contentious edits over a period of years, despite being asked to stop or refocus their efforts elsewhere on numerous occasions, the initial ban should be considerably longer. In such a case, a one-month ban is just an invitation for the same pattern of edits to resurface a month later, in my opinion. To be perfectly honest, such a case would rather warrant an indefinite ban. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1 month is only the minimum. The community can, of course, institute a longer ban if it's deemed necessary, provided there is consensus for that. The dog2 (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I recommend not creating a separate policy on topic bans. I'd much rather see a paragraph or two described on this page. I don't think this will get used often enough to be worth the effort of creating and maintaining a separate formal policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure it matters much whether it's on this page or on another page, but if people care about this, let's do whatever everybody prefers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing: I would disagree with you on that. Even if we rarely have to use it, I think it is better to have the policy stated out clearly in writing so that if we enforce this, there can be no complaints about bias or unfairness if we have followed the policy laid out in stone. Writing it out clearly ensures that we can apply the policy fairly, and not arbitrarily just because some people got upset. Rule of law is a very important principle of governance to ensure that all citizens of a country get treated fairly, and I think we should apply the same policy here at WV so every editor is treated fairly. The dog2 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Either putting it here or on another page linked from here is fine by me. @The dog2:, writing it up here doesn't preclude anything you're arguing for. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: I was responding specifically to the part about implementation without creating a formal separate policy. As to writing up a draft here or on another page linked from here, I absolutely agree with that. This should absolutely be spelt out clearly and unambiguously before we implement it as formal policy, and it will probably take multiple drafts for us to get there. The dog2 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but if a section on Topic bans is added to WV:How to handle unwanted edits, then it becomes formal policy. It doesn't have to be on a separate page to become so. I completely agree that such a policy, wherever it be written, must be "spelt out clearly and unambiguously."
One of the many things that I love about Wikivoyage is that it doesn't have an endlessly proliferating set of policies and guidelines. (And yes, I say this despite having invested years of my life in the English Wikipedia's incredibly complex policy system, including actually writing their policy on how to create a policy or guideline.) I think that "one-stop shopping" is much preferable for this group. Everything you need to know about handling unwanted edits should be on the same page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean now. I have no preference for it being another section on this page, or on a separate page, so long as it is written down clearly. The dog2 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Getting back to length of bans, I liked The dog2's idea of 1-month, 3-month and 6-month topic or interaction bans, followed by an indefinite ban (or if we really want to, followed by a 1-year ban and then an indefinite ban). Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment I wouldn't entirely support this, because one can always improve after some time... Maybe a topic ban for a certain time would be better. Arep Ticous 17:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward, or not[edit]

The discussion on this has died out. I got the ball rolling on this discussion, but there have been a lot of amendments, extensions and counter-proposals to my original proposal. Is anyone willing to come up with a new proposal to reflect the discussion, or do we let this die on the basis of lack of consensus? Ground Zero (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

We have User:SelfieCity/Draft:Topic bans; feel free to edit as you feel necessary. When the draft is complete, we can discuss whether or not we should make it a policy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Selfie. That looks good to me. I support the adoption of your draft as policy. Ground Zero (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Support --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

So is there a conclusion to this, or not? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think we have enough support to go through with this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we should add interaction bans to the page. Then it would be complete. The dog2 (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I've added in interaction bans. Please see if it this is OK with everybody else. The dog2 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Are interaction bans something that we need? I've come across situations on Wikivoyage where I've thought, "A topic ban might be the best way to solve this problem", but I don't think I've had the same thought about interaction bans. It's possible they're less suited to our project than to Wikipedia, which is a much bigger community with many more articles to work on. Here in a small community where most of the regulars know each other and participate in a lot of the same discussions, a prohibition on one active user interacting with another active user would really stifle both users' ability to participate in the project. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
While I have yet to come across a situation where it is needed here WV, I think we should have a possibility of that in our policies just in case we need it in the future. One of our aims is to grow the community so more parts of the world or travel topics can be covered, and it is not inconceivable that we may need it at some point (for instance, if one day we have both a Chinese nationalist and Japanese nationalist joining the community). Besides, I don't see the harm in writing it in now. As with any other type of ban, due process will have to followed to ensure that it is not abused. The possibility of an admin unilaterally implementing it is only for the most extreme of cases, but if you're uncomfortable with that provision, we can take it out. The dog2 (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
My feeling is that in general, we should introduce policies in order to address problems we come across, not write policy in case of some theoretical future situation. In your hypothetical example, by the way, I think a pair of topic bans would likely be more useful than an interaction ban.
To put it another way, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Let's introduce the topic ban policy for now, and if someday we decide we need to start having interaction bans, we can figure out what that would have to look like. (If we do decide to introduce interaction bans, the newly added paragraph isn't adequate—for starters it doesn't even state what an interaction ban is or its scope. But I'd rather avoid hammering out the details if it's not a tool we need.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree with Granger, and I also have some other reservations as to how interaction bans would work in practice:

  • What defines "interaction"? Is it just limited to direct communication on talk pages, or does it extend to two users editing the same article? Can a user subject to the ban still raise points of disagreement with the other user indirectly? Say interaction-banned user A doesn't agree with what interaction-banned user B wrote about gelato on Italy, can they then speak to admin C or user D to get the stuff about gelato changed? Or can user A write what they want to say about gelato on Italian cuisine, and then user B just has to put up with that?
  • Can interaction bans be applied just to one user? User X consistently harasses the reasonable user Y, so user X is banned from talking to user Y, but user Y has no restrictions on what they can or cannot do.
  • Finally, any interaction ban is a lot harder to enforce than another kind of ban. Admins will have to literally watch users subject to such a ban like a hawk, reviewing every single one of their edits to make sure they're not contravening it. Not only does that make the job of admin more unpleasant (like that of a police officer), it also creates a hostile environment of surveillance for users subject to bans; such bans are supposed to be there to discourage bad behaviour while ensuring the person continues to feel wanted and welcome, but I fear this would have the opposite outcome.

All in all, I think we should stick to the existing set of measures (+ topic bans) for now, and see how things go.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:The dog2 that we should have the ability to do interaction bans, but I don't think we have consensus to go ahead and implement it yet. Topic bans, however, do have consensus, IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
In the case study I brought up from WP, the interaction ban was implemented in conjunction with the topic ban; the Korean nationalist was banned from editing anything to do with Japan, the Japanese nationalist was banned from editing anything to do with Korea, and both users were banned from interacting with each other on all talk pages. And if both were involved in the same discussions, they were required to avoid addressing each other directly, and go through a neutral admin if one had any disagreements with the other.
But anyway, since the consensus seems to be against implementing interaction bans for now, I won't stand in the way of the community implementing topic bans without interaction bans. The dog2 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I (and hopefully all of those who read your explanation) understand the scenario and why it's a good way to solve problems. However, we are already taking a step into the unknown by implementing topic bans, and interaction bans at the same time would really be starting something in which we lack experience. My thought is that it's just best to wait for now. In a year, we may be ready to start interaction bans. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Partial blocks deployment to Wikivoyage[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Hello Wikivoyage contributors,

Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team is continuing to make improvements to Special:Block with the addition of the ability to set a partial block

While no functionality will change for sitewide blocks, Special:Block will change to allow for the ability to block a named user account or ip address from:

  • Editing one or more specific page(s)
  • Editing all pages within one or more namespace(s)

Additionally, changes are being made to the design of the user interface for Special:Block to enable admins to set partial blocks.

Until now partial block has only been deployed on Wikipedias. Since Wikipedia administrators found partial blocks useful and there are no serious known issues or bugs, our team is planning to introduce partial blocks into more Foundation wikis. We think it is important to find any bugs that might exist for Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wiktionary, Commons, Wikidata, etc. that are not Wikipedias so we are going to deploy to a few of these wikis next week with our software developers ready to respond to any issues that may arise.

Currently it is scheduled to SWAT deploy to English Wikivoyage on Monday, June 17, 2019.

Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts about introducing partial blocks on Wikivoyage. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team. SPoore (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Good news. For those in the topic ban discussion (User:Ground Zero, User:Ikan Kekek, etc.), this would greatly help when doing topic bans. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Partial blocks is now deployed. Let us know if you notice any issues or have questions.
Here is a description of the use of partial blocks Also here is a page that the Italian Wikipedia created about partial blocks. This wiki might want to update there policies according with something similar. SPoore (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The North Face vandalism of Wikipedia[edit]

Swept in from the pub

For those who haven't seen it yet: The North Face hired an ad agency which went and edited pages for popular hiking destinations on Wikipedia, swapping out the existing pictures for product placement shots featuring the TNF logo. All this because pics from Wikipedia tend to show up high in a Google search for those places.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/29/lets-talk-about-the-north-face-defacing-wikipedia/

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/29/18644158/north-face-wikipedia-hack-leo-burnett-top-imagens

I don't imagine Wikivoyage has been a target for something like this (yet), but it might be something good to keep in mind. If we see images appearing on WV with gratuitous or unnecessary branded products in them, it might be someone up to this kind of folly. RickScott (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Well will strike that brand off my shopping list. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The agency was clueless in the way it went about this. I saw that some of the images were deleted on commons because they were copyvios of the company's catalogue. There have been attempts on here in the past - I recall removing images which had some "stay with us" text on them. AlasdairW (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
They only did it to 12 images, and then produced a video to explain what they'd done. It sounds very calculated to me; their goal wasn't to get microscopic North Face logos into image search results, it was to get news agencies to talk about North Face (and presumably hope that there were more people who simply remembered the name as a result than there were people who were offended by what they'd done). --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Bigpeteb here. That is definitely suspicious. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Policy[edit]

I was about to block an IP address for adding some nonsense to an article but while looking at Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits found this:

Graffiti is the insertion of off-topic messages into Wikivoyage pages. Examples: "BOB IS GAY", "asdfasdfasdfasdf", "Does this really work?" Most graffiti is simply a test that the Wiki principles we espouse are actually in use. The editor is in effect asking, "Can anyone write anything on any page?" The answer, of course, is yes, indeed, they can. Another common bit of graffiti is selecting the entire contents of a page, deleting it, and saving the now blank page. This, also, works.
Graffiti can be a first step to becoming a real contributor. For this reason, it's best to treat graffiti as experimentation, and simply revert the edited page to its previous version without graffiti. A message to the person who made the graffiti edit, letting them know that it was noticed, and that they're welcome to make more valuable contributions to the guide would also be a good idea. It can also help to point them to the Graffiti wall, where they can practice their Wiki markup skills without scribbling on regular pages.

Should I not block this user? Or is this some more policy from the beginning of the website? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

How many articles did they put graffiti into? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Just one, I believe. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
It was an edit to the Iberia article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The edit --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't block for 1 instance of graffiti unless it was extremely offensive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks for advice. I didn't, so therefore I guess that is not an issue. What do you think of the policy itself? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it's pretty good. I generally revert without comment, but a message is a good idea whenever anyone wants to take the time to write one. I do block people who vandalize multiple pages - graffiti, if multiplied across a bunch of pages, ends up being vandalism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; that's a good explanation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: He's back. See another likely edit of his. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Dunno, but a single act of graffiti is a cinch to rollback. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
True. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing visibility[edit]

Swept in from the pub

When performing this action, Wikivoyage:Deny recognition now shows up. I added it as an option. That change is only local, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I checked Special:Contributions/SelfieCity and the page I adjusted is MediaWiki:Revdelete-reason-dropdown. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You might want to re-think that. Saying that you're denying recognition to someone is, itself, an act of recognition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Well then, that leaves the question of what to put down as a reason. We have very specific parameters as to when it's appropriate to revdel for reasons of recognition denial, and those cases generally have nothing to do with copyvio, libel, doxing, or the other reasons listed on the drop-down menu. Remember that the vandal himself is not the only, or even the primary, intended audience for those edit summary tags - they mainly exist so that fellow editors on Recent Changes patrol can understand the rationale without having to view the edits for themselves, which the MediaWiki software makes quite a cumbersome thing to do in the case of deleted revisions. (I see this as especially important because revdel is a somewhat more heavy-handed tactic that's not generally used for these types of purposes on other WMF sites. I like the link to the policy page on the drop-down menu option as a way to emphasize to less active editors who may have missed the discussions where this policy was created, or to those who may be more active on other wikis, that all these revdels are indeed covered by Wikivoyage policy rather than being a case of abuse of sysop tools or whatnot.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe "Vandalism"? Or maybe no information in the log at all, since no comment would be the most effective form of denying recognition? I grant that this might make other admins more likely to review your decision to revdel, but that's not really a disadvantage. Doing so gives everyone confidence that the tool is being used well, and helps spread information about what others think is a reasonable use. Furthermore, as this is an experimental process that applies to a very small subset of users, and only when the number of edits is "overwhelming", it seems be unlikely that the absence of a public reason would create an unreasonable workload. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I am arguing that an edit summary is worthwhile and I suppose the same applies to the logs. I do not believe such log entries would be an award the vandals would seek. --LPfi (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)