Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive 2015-2016

User:WVeteran
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 * You're citing a policy that is de facto no longer in effect, Powers.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 &bull; (talk) &bull; 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)

User:66.99.216.2
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 User ban nominations/Archive, 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 &bull; (talk) &bull; 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 66.99.216.2 (talk • contribs)

Usman Khan Shah
I've blocked Usman for 2 hours without consulting the community due to his continued disruptive behaviour. Please see Travellers%27_pub. --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
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)

User:Harlan888
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)

User:124.13.151.250
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:175.138.99.217 might possibly be the same user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And other IPs; have a look at User talk:115.135.102.228. 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. 80.234.172.158 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

User:80.234.185.120
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. 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. 80.234.185.120 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. 195.147.222.177 21:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:195.147.222.177 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: 80.234.158.36. 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 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 &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * New one that appears to be the same user, to watch: User:80.234.168.131, 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... 80.234.156.75 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 &bull; (talk) &bull; 00:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True. 80.234.156.75 00:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Alice/Frank/118 summary
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:


 * (September 2013)
 * (October 2013)
 * (October 2013)
 * (November 2013)
 * (February 2014)
 * (March 2014)
 * (May 2014)
 * (November 2014)
 * (December 2014)
 * (May 2015)
 * (August 2015)

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:178.88.39.95 and User:37.150.167.177
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:178.88.39.95 for reference. User contributions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Boxingdude
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)

DumfriesNative
This user has just moved into 'Real life threats' as per User_talk:Traveler100 (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 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 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)

User:Adeleone
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)

Turbo8000

 * 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 --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:
 * 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 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
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
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? Turbo  8000  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 . 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 [https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Lima&type=revision&diff=2928769&oldid=2927572 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
I took the liberty of indefbanning this user due to the following extremely problematic diff at 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 How to handle unwanted edits (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. 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 (How to handle unwanted edits), 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 &bull; (talk) &bull; 23:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know why this is controversial. I pointed to two clauses in How to handle unwanted edits 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 &bull; (talk) &bull; 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 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 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 How to handle unwanted edits 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 &bull; (talk) &bull; 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 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 How to handle unwanted edits, 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 &bull; (talk) &bull; 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)

NeoMaps
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 in particular. User contributions, User talk:NeoMaps. Also, note the discussion and links at User talk:Ikan Kekek. 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
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)


 * ✅. 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)

User:179.7.113.46
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
Firstly a totally inappropriate user name, secondly vandalism such as this or this Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ibaman (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, this apparently deeply disturbed person was again "contributing to our Wiki" tonight: Special:Contributions/Bruce_Jenner%27s_Worst_Nightmare. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This IP User
https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.92.244.137 has blanked a couple of pages already. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * When there is completely obvious vandalism such as this, I don't think a discussion is really required? Are you sure you just don't want admin buttons to deal with this kind of thing? :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There was a previous one week block, so gave it a month this time. The history consists only of blanking pages. Pashley (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User: 2600:1000:B03B:28AB:FD2C:5180:DAF0:373C
Just arrived, but should we permanently block the user already? I've provisionally blocked this user for 24 hours, unusually including their user talk page, pending a decision. For a very clear explanation, see Wikivoyage user contributions and global user contributions. This individual seems to be at the very least a very angry and unconstructive editor. Does anyone disagree with a permanent block? If so, what course of action do you recommend for this unpleasant individual? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S., Please read this message. Do you think we should accede to his request? Considering that User:Ebyabe isn't editing Wikivoyage at present, it's not likely that anyone would need to post a new message to his user talk page, but we could protect it only against unregistered users or whatever. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * IPs should never be permanently blocked, but given the history on other wikis a block of a week or more would be within policy. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My talk page protect should be enough. The user (under various IPs) does this when they get blocked on Wikipedia. They also attack User:MarnetteD and User:Sro23. The latter don't appear to have accounts here, so just blocking my page should be enough. It worked when they attacked me on my Tardis Wikia page. Cheers. --Ebyabe (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we protect his user page, and also protect his user talk page from edits except by registered users? Anyone object? And what about a month's block for that IP user? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the block time to 1 month. I doubt anyone will disagree, but if you do, hey, go wild. :-) Meanwhile, what about that edit protection? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ikan, if the user himself is requesting protection for his own talk page, I can't imagine why we shouldn't. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User and user talk pages protected, only autoconfirmed users. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. You are the best. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. And the door's open for you to come back and do more editing here whenever you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Google_Advertising_for_Wikivoyage
The user has just arrived here, but as his or her username suggests, it is an account intended to advertise Google products. First problem here being that they advertise, the second being that they advertise non-travel related products. I've notified this user about their edits and linked them to WV:DT as I didn't know what else I could link. The user's edits speak for themselves. I'd suggest banning this person if they continue, but please, discuss. I've also gone ahead and tagged their edits for speedy deletion. -- Wauteurz (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wauteurz (and other users who may be reading this) - In cases like this where a user's name clearly indicates spammy or vandalistic intentions, there's no need to "keep your eye out" or hem and haw on this page about whether they should be banned. Speedy-ban them and move on. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, AndreCarrotflower. I was, for one, unaware of that possibility. -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Sterlabot
Please watch this user. I strongly believe this is User:Turbo8000/User:NeoMaps. See revision history of Spanish phrasebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ikan Kekek . They have been trying to delete their ban nomination a few times. I have placed a warning on their talk page to which I hope they respond positively towards. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What's the delay? The user is reinstating the exact same edits that got User:NeoMaps banned in the first place. He's banned on Spanish Wikipedia, he's got a username that implies he's a bot, and he's edit-warring. It's clearly the same person, so why not just ban him now, and save yourselves the hassle of another battle? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly second the above. If we're talking block evasion, you instaban as soon as it becomes clear what you're dealing with. You don't waste time here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:ControlCorV
Is the best policy to ignore this individual and hope he/she will give up or to ban him/her as an obnoxious time-waster who came here with an ax to grind and has nothing to contribute to the site? In case you have yet to have the dubious pleasure of encountering this user, here are his/her contributions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why in this website any minor edition is controversial. Why not try to solve things like adult people on this website? --ControlCorV (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should resort to a user ban, but regular increasing blocks seem justified and enough if the unwanted behaviour doesn't change. I'm not at all convinced it's bad intentions we're seeing; the discussion on Talk:Colombia suggests to me that he/she is misreading the sentence that bothers him/her so much. I've explained one more time, so let's see what happens and simply react accordingly. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I suspect this may be the same person as the other apparently nationalistically-motivated recent problem editor on Talk:Colombia. Was that user ever formally banned, and if so could this be construed as block evasion? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Likely just a coincidence, but I think we've had more than usual of this type of edits/editors as of lately. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I know we already have our WV:Be fair policy, but what about a new policy explicitly dealing with nationalist agendas? They do seem to have a tendency of creeping back in (they seem to have been much more common in the earliest days) Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Except for working on the same article, I don't think there's much evidence of these being the same users (and language use and topics don't suggest it either). Nationalist agenda's is a strong word, and should be used sparingly. We have plenty of policies to deal with unwanted edits, nationalistic ones included. The tough part is to judge when they are appropriate to use. In this case, it's more likely simply a local who feels his/her country is being portrayed in an undeservedly negative way, due to language issues rather than any political agenda. At least, let's not jump to conclusions and assume good faith at first. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like things have died down, so I agree that there's no reason to act now. And perhaps JuliasTravels' last-ditch explanation did some good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

User:‎Henrique Capriles Radonski
Seems to be a recurrence of our old "friend" mentioned above and now also appropriating the name of a Venezuelan politician (iirc) Look at that user's es-WV contributions as well as the en-WV behavior. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That account was already indefinitely blocked. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 03:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Archive away. Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:50.195.72.217
**Note: I've unarchived this thread because the IP user in question has resumed editing on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of these edits are disconcerning. Compare them to the "other site" and they are reversions that make our guides the same as that guide
 * Hiroshima.
 * Okayama edits appear much the same.
 * Takamatsu.

This user appears to have an agenda that is harmful to our site. There is no way all of these exact same structures, links and phrases can be coincidental in multiple articles this user has made massive edits on. It was also noticed years ago (2014) on the talk page by User:Wrh2 and the user was specifically told to stop. Two of those above (Okayama and Hiroshima) are star articles. There is incentive to devalue them.

ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, and I repeat once again: it's time to talk about a formal policy against duplication of content between WT and WV. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * While I agree that we want to avoid duplication, and that should be addressed, the intentions here might be more positive than suggested. I only checked one change now, to Takamatsu. It seems that this IP made the same changes to the text on both Wikitravel and Wikivoyage simultaneously. Two weeks ago, the text was just as much the same on both sites as it is now. In short; at least for that particular edit, the issue is not so much that they are copying, but rather that we prefer unique changes and updates. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I think there are a few issues that might make a block a less-than-optimal solution, but I'll defer to those who have been more involved. First, I don't think this user's edits clearly merit a block - there may be an ulterior motive, but that isn't clear, so (if anything) reverts might be a better solution.  Second, it's an IP user, and IPs can change easily, so if a block is applied it's going to turn into a game of whack-a-mole.  Third, the problem with this user isn't so much that they make the same changes on both sites, but that they make huge changes in a single edit, and it's questionable whether some of the changes are an improvement - we definitely don't want changes that copy WT prose if it's not a clear improvement, but since the user puts so many changes into a single edit it makes a revert feel very heavy-handed.  I'm not particularly active in working with this user, so I'll defer to those who are, but my preference would be to avoid a block and attempt communication where it's made clear that only the user's own edits can be copied, andthat large edits that copy prose will be reverted unless they are obvious improvements. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To address some of your comments - and again, if we're talking hypothetical new policies I'm aware this isn't the place to do it - if we were to institute a rule forbidding copying from WT, I would oppose an exception for "obvious improvements" to the status quo. We're talking about prose here - specific words, phrases, and sentences - not content per se. If there's valuable information in a WT article that's not included in the analogous WV article, we should add it but not verbatim. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Unsure — To me this has been a good and valuable user who has updated articles of destinations in the former USSR and around Washington D.C., even if it's not optimal that they edit the whole page at a time instead of breaking up stuff in smaller edits so that other users would easier be able to evaluate it. Nevertheless, if Ip50 is copying content from WT verbatim (even if it's their own text), then we should at the very least make the user aware that it's something we strongly discourage. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I find it surprising that a userban is being discussed. Is there any indication that this user would edit war if a decision were made to revert his/her edits, assuming that's the best thing to do (which seems like a complicated question to me)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I now Support a userban, given that the IP user has said s/he's fine with it and would rather just edit WT. However, I do maintain that the next time, before proposing a userban, the user in question should be told unambiguously not to make the same edits on both sites and warned that continuing to do so could incur a userban nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is basically punishing a user simply because we have a historical issue with WT, and not because they are actually damaging WV or breaking any policy. I also would strongly prefer the content between the two sites to be different and would support policy change discussions to formalize that. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Comments about informing the user should refer to what I said and the talk page. The user was informed in 2014 about the exact same issue and has either never stopped or resumed. Sure we can tell them again, but that user is already on notice. Whether or not the user starts an edit war is irrelevant. A vandal who concedes only when they're caught is still a vandal. Also one of their DC edit summaries even referenced that they were trying not to write the same as WT (and it is probably worth checking their edits outside of Japan articles against WT). Maybe this user is just horrible at writing unique content, but we/they cannot claim they are not aware of the issue and their part in it. It doesn't help that they continue to ignore comments on their talk page about their editing, including the copying one.
 * I reject the premise that I nominated this because of a WT "feud". I noticed because the user had done one of his/her edit spams on Okayama, an article that I watch. I noticed that work I had put into the article both to make it a star article and to make it stand out enough to show up on search engines had been undermined. That is what led me to look a little further, since the edit patterns were strange (but convenient for someone copying-and-pasting) and the user had made a lot of full-article Japan edits. It was then that I discovered that the Japan edits were made to make the content indistinguishable.
 * I certainly do support a policy change to ban copy-paste editing of content from WT or any source. I thought we already had something like that. There's always more than one way to describe a place/event. None of our articles should be copy-pasted from any other sources. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my talk page comment to this user in 2014 was that it was a license violation to copy text written by other authors without providing attribution. As far as I'm aware, since then any text copied has been edits made by the same IP user on both sites, without including past text added by other authors. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 15:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right. This user doesn't always reply to messages on his/her talk page, but is by no means completely uncommunicative. I'd refer everyone to his/her comment at the end of Talk:Washington, D.C.. I would like to again state that I find it extremely objectionable that a userban is even being contemplated at this time. His/her edits can be reverted with an explanation to his/her talk page and the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question, if that's deemed to be the best course of action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ChubbyWimbus I agree and support your efforts on making these articles stand out, and completely understandable that you feel these edits undermine that good work. Again I support a discussion around how we build a framework to deal with that. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment regardless of this user, who may or may not have malicious intentions (they sure as hell cannot claim ignorance), we should clarify our relationship to that other site a bit more and maybe give an essay style piece of advice to new editors who wonder about the ins and outs. Our current comparison article is good but not enough. All the "regulars" know that there is bad blood and the google penalty, but newbies might genuinely not know and IB has in the past sent people our way to disrupt us. Now I am not saying the IP is this, but other than blatant trolling, making sure that the duplicate penalty stays in place is one of the first ways I would consider if I had to devise a strategy of hurting WV (Which I of course would never do, but it helps to try and think from the other side's perspective to glean their motives and find a good strategy of one's own). Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarifying policy is different from a userban thread. This user is simply making the same edits to both sites. How that can be interpreted as malicious is really hard for me to understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that the suggestion is that since mainly star articles are being edited, the edits could be interpreted as an effort to specifically devalue Wikivoyage's highest profile articles in the eyes of search engines. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 23:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the idea that the edits are malicious really hard to believe, but the solution is quite evident: Revert the changes and post to the user's talk page. Afterwards, any changes that are purely factual updates could be done piecemeal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, the user is already aware of the issue and hasn't stopped. Ambivalence is not much better than malevolence. This sort of issue though is a really annoying one to police, because you have to check it against another site. Yes, we can revert all edits and inform the user why, but we'll be right back here if they continue as they have, so I don't see why you were surprised this is something being talked about. It's serious vandalism regardless whether the user means to do it or is not bright enough to understand that copy-paste is not "unique content". But the talk page you referenced doesn't portray that user positively at all. Sure, they responded, but they did so by dismissing the concerns raised and told YOU to deal with it if you care about unique content. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And then went right back and did the same thing on another article. I think any claims that this user doesn't know exactly what he's doing, or at the very least is being willfully negligent about it, are just not credible. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This user has never been told point-blank to never make the same edits here that s/he makes on Wikitravel, nor has s/he been informed of this user ban thread. I will now inform him/her and solicit him/her to reply here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Even though I made the same edits to WV and WT, the parts of the articles that were changed were the same before my edits, just like they are after my edits. If I changed certain articles on WV and WT to be the same when they previously were not the same, I could understand your point, but since they were the same both before and after my edits, there is really no change in position. Also, with regards to SEO, search the web for the article titled "Matt Cutts: Duplicate Content Won’t Hurt You, Unless It Is Spammy", which implies that WV may actually not be penalized for duplicate content. I even offered to paraphrase my own text so that the sites would not be the same. Anyhow, I am fine with the ban. I will just update WT from now on, which gets 7x the daily page views as WT anyhow. 50.195.72.217 15:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your response is appreciated. Not to sidetrack the discussion, but one clarification with regards to the Matt Cutts video you cited - he is saying that a site will not have its overall Google ranking devalued as a punishment for hosting non-spammy duplicate content, but he notes that any pages that Google thinks are duplicates will be ignored and not included in search results, which is the problem Wikivoyage is facing. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it? I usually see Wikivoyage in the results, just several spots down from WT. Powers (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless you are using a search engine that explicitly doesn't, search results are tailored to who is doing the searching. So google "knows" that you are a WV user (or something to a similar effect) and will thus give WV a "bump" in your searches as you are more likely to be interested in those hits than the average search query. Just how big the duplicate penalty is can be gleaned by looking at articles that were created after the fork, which often have quite good google ranks. And what the IP just said looks astonishingly like IB propaganda. Not to be all paranoid and stuff, but we should definitely be more on the lookout for duplicate content in the future. Just giving big sweeping edits a short second look could be a good preventative measure when doing recent changes patrol. How we deal with the editor in question will of course have to be decided independent of that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're exactly right, Hobbitschuster. Personally, any lingering doubt I may have had that we might not be dealing with a troll evaporated as soon as I read the IP editor's response. It fits to a T the pattern we've seen time and time again from IB trolls: when they're called out on their nonsense, they do the tail-between-the-legs routine where they act as if they have no idea why a userban has been proposed (despite being warned about the same or essentially the same behavior before?) and the fact that anyone would even think to call their motives into question hurts their feelings, and then comes the plot twist at the end where they turn from mock-penitent to spiteful, threatening to leave for Wikitravel because they're the superior site anyway. It's a spiel that's tired, predictable to the point of being a cliché, and totally transparent. And some of us Wikivoyage editors really have to learn how to recognize a pattern and avoid falling into the trap of giving these trolls the benefit of the doubt. Assuming good faith has nothing to do with it: take for example the long-term abuse case file on user "John Daker" over at Wikipedia. They don't waste time sending out nice little talk-page messages every time they see one of his sockpuppets add a black triangle or some gobbledygook about Huff Daland Dusters to an article, because AGF - they instaban the accounts, no questions asked. Here, meanwhile, many of us seem content to react to these trolls the same way over and over expecting different results. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, now that the IP user has put things this way, I think we should take him/her up on the userban and revert all his/her work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, this is exactly why, in another conversation, I expressed suspicion of WV users who are also active at WT. Invariably, the problem editors who engage in the above pattern of behavior are avowed editors of both sites, and I have found that in the vast majority of cases it also works the other way around (the Frank/Alice/118 hydra was also active at WT, IIRC). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe they were permanently banned from WT before they were from WV. But haven't we had admins who were active on both sites after the fork? I seem to remember that being true. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion, length of ban
Does anyone continue to oppose a userban, now that the user in question has said s/he's OK with being banned, and WT is better, anyway? And how long should we ban an IP address? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If they really do voluntarily cease making unwanted edits on this wiki, no block is necessary. But if a block is to be applied, our policy on escalating blocks says 3 days for the first block. Then 2 weeks if they make unwanted edits after that, and so on. Nurg (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a three day block just to revert all of the edits... Some cannot be reverted because of edits since this user's edits. It took me forever to do the Okayama page. Maybe admins can more easily do it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The user has made just a few edits a day, and none after the giveaway comment above where they also say they won't edit here anymore. If they've now disappeared for good, I think it's meaningless to ban the IP. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If we're to assume the user is an IB troll, then nrwt applies given that they're editing on behalf of a company that's brought legal action against the WMF in the past and, even for some time after that was settled, still continued to send trolls over here to disrupt things. Though the usual prescription of an indefinite-term ban is impossible for an anonymous IP editor, I still think we have grounds for a ban far longer than three days. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not for an IP. We should only be using IP bans to prevent disruptive editing. If the editing has stopped, then we shouldn't risk blocking a legitimate user from that IP.  Powers (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

(indent) So if the user edits again, we block or we assume it's a new user? I hope though that some admin is at least following through on the reversion of this user's contributions within the past month or so. I don't want those to get put to the wayside regardless of what is decided in terms of the ban. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In March 2015 one of the IB admins blocked 50.195.72.217 for a week on WT, so I doubt it is an IB person. Nurg (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That may be so, but does the fact that they are an IB person or not have any bearing on our ban procedures? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I dont work for IB; if I did, I wouldn't go through the trouble of improving WV. 50.195.72.217 16:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Just curious as to the reason you want to revert my edits....goes to show that you are willing to hurt the site just because of a personal dispute..... 50.195.72.217 16:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Barring objection I'm going to close this nomination today without any action. At this point a block seems pointless based on the fact that the user isn't editing articles right now, but more importantly there does not seem to be any consensus for a block, there is no agreement on a block length, and the discussion is turning into speculation and accusations rather than anything resembling what's been previously agreed to in WV:How to handle unwanted edits. If anyone has concerns about particular edits and wants to revert them please do so, but continuing this discussion as a ban nomination does not seem like it is a productive activity. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A question: What was the reason given by that other site for the block? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

January 2017 re-emergence
The user in question has been contributing again. Should we take any action? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Do these new edits consist of yet more WT copypasta? If so, my position remains the same as it always has been: 1) yes, by all means block the user, and 2) for God's sake let's get moving on formally banning verbatim copying from WT. Obviously it's a problem that needs to be addressed - we've seen several examples of it already - and we've dropped the ball on solving it too many times already. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Simply re-nominating this user because he is "editing", without naming a clear reason for a block and when a previous nomination never gained a consensus to block seems wrong. What exactly is the reason for this nomination anyway? At first glance, the edits here and on WT do not seem the same (information is being added here, which wasn't on WT). He did remove some closed listings on both sites, but I do hope we don't want to stop anyone from deleting wrong information, even if they do so on both sites? We're jumping the gun with this one. The user has been responsive in the past. If there is another problem with his latest edits, why not simply start a discussion on his talk page before nominating for a ban? JuliasTravels (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with JuliasTravels, and was actually already writing a comment at User_talk:50.195.72.217 when the above comment was added here. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree also. Unfortunately, Ikan and AndreCarrotflower, while longtime editors with good contributions, are simply not to be trusted with regard to their judgment on such matters. They are the embodiment of the "ban first, ask questions later" admin type who drive contributors away from wikis. Very clearly they have a lot of WT envy and paranoia that clouds their otherwise good reputation here. I think the IP user in question is enogmatic, and some people don't like that. But that is NOT a reason to ban them. SpendrupsForAll (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh hi, Spendrups. Haven't seen you since 2014; haven't seen you in mainspace since ever. It's certainly interesting, yet certainly not out of character, to see that you've reemerged on these less-green pastures in a random userban discussion to grind your axe against two long term editors whom you address by name. You might be interested to know that these days we take a much harder line against dramamongers like yourself than we did in the heady old days of Frank and Alice, so unless you want to see your name come up on this page in a different capacity, I'd kindly ask you to avoid stirring the pot and maybe concentrate on mainspace edits, which, again, you've logged precisely zero of in more than three years on Wikivoyage. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not to get too sidetracked, but insulting other editors is obviously not a productive way to collaborate, although it is (in my opinion) just as harmful to respond to those sorts of edits with comments like the above - a future ban for uncivil behavior is harder to support when those implementing the ban make comments that can be seen as uncivil. WV:Keep Wikivoyage fun has some agreed-upon processes in place that may be worth reviewing. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * But then you'd be objecting to the original thread. All I did was revive it since s/he's started editing again. And as I said, simply spreading awareness of that fact and the need to monitor it is useful. To make clear to the IP user: You are not at threat of being banned right now. We are watching your edits to see if they are problematic or not. If not, wonderful, and carry on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ryan, take a look at Spendrups' contribution history and then seriously try to tell me he has any intention of helping us create a travel guide. How to handle unwanted edits says editors who are clearly only here to cause trouble can get permabanned without consultation, and frankly, being called out by name like this doesn't push me in the direction of showing him much mercy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If the user is copy and pasting from WT without attribution then that is an issue in itself. A conversation with the contributor is always the appropriate way to handle it, but if they steadfastly refuse interaction then we should judge the edits on their own merit. I'm going to say this edit doesn't actually raise any alarm bells for me, but it is worth spreading awareness if this has potential to be an issue in the future. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: I'm not exactly renominating this user for a ban. I just thought that since we had closed the nomination at least partially on the basis that s/he had paused in editing, it was worth discussing whether to do anything now. As far as I'm concerned, merely alerting everyone to watch what s/he does is fine, but I think that as long as s/he's editing, this nomination should probably remain open for possible future action, depending on the nature of his/her edits going forward. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My assumption is that anything on this page is a ban nomination - the top of this page notes "Add nominations for user blocks to the list below". If this isn't a ban nomination ("I'm not exactly renominating this user for a ban") can the desired outcome be clarified and the discussion moved elsewhere? -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 23:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The outcome was a discussion and awareness. We had that. I am satisfied, and we can either re-close discussion or keep this open for a time while watching edits. I'd favor the latter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I prefaced my comments with a question regarding whether the user had copypasted any more WT text. It looks like he didn't, for which reason I'm fine with holding off on a userban, but if and when he does, that will be my position. However, though I know it's a discussion for another talk page, the IMO far more important of the two points I made was the one regarding instituting a formal policy against WT copypasta. Copying text written on WT by another author is already a violation of copyleft, but when the same user adds identical text to both sites, that's something current policy merely discourages rather than prohibits outright. As I see it, we're leaving ourselves wide open for the other site to tamper with the progress we've made with SEO. And if that sounds too much like a conspiracy theory for some people's taste, it seems like most instances of copying from WT that we've seen fall into that category anyway, regardless of intention. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)