Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits/Archive 2004-2013

Purpose
So, I got this page started as a preventive measure. Most of these ideas have already been used in the past, and are probably second nature to more experienced Wikivoyagers. But I wanted to make sure we had an explanation of the ideas, and also a failsafe mechanism in place in case SoftSecurity fails us at some point.

I realize that other wikis, like Wikipedia, employ hard security measures like user bans more often than we do (that is, not at all -- yet). I'd like to continue to rely on friendly, open corrections as long as possible. We don't have enough contributors to start making enemies out of potential ones -- however slight the potential may be.

As usual, comments welcome. --(WT-en) Evan 01:43, 6 Feb 2004 (EST)


 * I'm wondering if by mentioning the fork option, if we're not making it more legitimate/likely. Eric Raymond argues that there is a great social pressure against forking open source projects, and so it is very rare. I'm not sure how well "open source psychology" transfers to a Wiki though. So I'm wondering if we shouldn't mention it at all? I know this reasoning is kind of flaky, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway. The other side of this is that maybe by pretending that certain issues don't exist (by not mentioning them) then we would jeopardize the strength of the Wikivoyage community. --(WT-en) Dawnview 00:34, 9 Feb 2004 (EST)


 * I agree that forking is probably is a last resort, and finding some kind of accommodation is probably the best way to deal with policy problems. But personally I think it's worse to have catastrophic policy battles than to have forks. I'd rather see groups of editors go different ways based on policy differences than have all the editors just give up on Wikivoyage in disgust at political infighting.


 * As to whether the pressure not to fork carries over to Wiki: I think some, but not as much as you'd think. There's a lot of examples of forks in wikis, like Wikinfo and Enciclopedia Libre from Wikipedia, or CommunityWiki and FermentWiki from MeatballWiki (although there's dispute whether these last cases are "true" forks).


 * As to whether or not to mention it: well, the main reason I set up this page was to discuss when and how we implement user bans (a feature of the MediaWiki software). It's something I never want us to have to do, but I'd rather we were ready for it when the time came than trying to scramble and come up with some procedure in the middle of a divisive period. I kinda feel the same way about forking: it's better to work out how we deal with it when it's not an issue than scramble to deal with it later. --(WT-en) Evan 01:52, 9 Feb 2004 (EST)

WikiSpam
Moved from Project:Travellers' pub by (WT-en) Huttite 21:39, 2 Oct 2004 (EDT)

How should WikiTravel address WikiSpam?

I notice that there is some (chinese) WikiSpam being posted. If you are not already aware of the site http://spammers.chongqed.org/ is documenting cases of WikiSpam so that the google pageranking of keywords is defeated. Rather than just deleting WikiSpam, persistant WikiSpam should be chongqed by being submitted and buried completely. (WT-en) Evan - good to see ROBOTS.TXT disallows search engines access to the page history. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:48, 1 Oct 2004 (EDT)

User bans
As written, this policy puts all user-ban decisions in the hands of admins. That's contrary to the general spirit of policies here where we consider admin power to be merely a janitorial tool. I don't really have a better suggestion, but it's kinda odd. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:54, 5 Mar 2005 (EST)

Problems with this policy
This policy fails to adequately address childish but persistant vandalism. While the general procedure works, the step from "it's your problem to revert everything" to "full user ban" is too severe a jump. Wikipedia handles persistant vandals with warnings, and then a short 24 hour ban. The 24 hour ban just makes the vandal go away. Sure they can retry the next day, but that's not as annoying since they can be re-tempbanned. What is annoying is to follow a vandal around and fix the problems for no reason other that to preserve our reputation as "never banned nobody." Additionally, even if we have someone playing babysitter and following the vandal around, the recent changes page and all the history pages get so spammed as to be unusable. I propose the following:

1. Add more admins so that more of our users have single-click revert buttons to ease the task of revertion.

2. Allow 24-hour bans for a user who deliberately vandalize 10 or more pages within a 24 hour period, and who vandalizes 5 or more pages after being warned. By deliberately, I mean that they intend to cause damage, and are not merely users trying to help or even just someone trying to promote their site in extlinks.

Personally, I'm no longer interested in cleaning up after persistant vandals without more policy in my favor. This just increases the burden on others, which risks having them burn out too. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:20, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)


 * I made a patch against the version of Mediawiki which we run that allows an admin to revert everything that shows up on a given user contributions page. This allows restriction by time, so that contributions by an earlier user of the same IP would not be effected.


 * With this patch in place there is absolutely no reason whatever to block an entire group of users sitting behind a given IP for any length of time. Think about it: Blocking is what the vandal wants us to do.  Heck this particular one spent most of his first (and longest) vandalism run asking me to block the IP, probably so that he could send a letter to the editor of his local student paper about what weeners we were for blocking the whole school.  Well, I didn't do it. -- (WT-en) Mark 15:46, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)


 * I can already get the effect of your patch by going to the user contributions page, finding all (top) pages, and middle clicking the revert next to them. Don't get me wrong -- your patch is useful for undoing large scale foo (though I hope you limit the reversion so it doesn't kill contribs by previous users of the ip address).  But the problem I'm trying to address is the continuing and ongoing vandalism which happens after you hit revert-all.


 * The script you wrote did handle the ongoing vandalism problem. But I have concerns with it: 1. your script was in effect no different from a user ban (except the reverts could be reverted if they were good contribs) 2. your script doesn't solve the messy-history problem and 3. if your script was distributed openly and used by vandals, we would have no choice but to do ip-blocks. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:00, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)

Deceptive usernames
So after the recent User:(WT-en) OIdPine episode, should we add a case allowing blocks for deceptive user names? &mdash; (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:45, 26 July 2006 (EDT)


 * While I didn't think so when I first started editing here, I now tend to agree that blocks are counter-productive. I don't buy into the idea that a vandal will eventually become a useful contributor, but it does seem that anyone vandalizing the site gets bored and leaves when no one pays any attention to them.  For example, if I immediately revert someone's vandalism they really are more likely to stick around, but when it goes unnoticed for a while they seem to wander off quickly.  Given that, I'd say blocks aren't going to be productive - it's attention, and if anything encourages someone to be more creative in how they abuse the site.


 * Long story short, I don't think any policy that calls for blocks will be effective, and that even a deceptive user name isn't a worthwhile reason to block someone. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:52, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Handling trolls
During today's reverting fun Colin asked if someone could start a discussion about handling trolls. Trolls are annoying and it's hard to ignore them, but I think it would be helpful if we could follow some of the advice outlined in WikiPedia:Wikipedia:What is a troll, particularly the section on "the value of slow reverts" - I don't think we need to leave offending content for more than a few minutes, but an immediate revert simply encourages further vandalism. The benefit of taking a "don't feed the trolls" approach is:


 * Someone who is trolling is looking for attention, and by immediately reverting any changes they make we are giving them something to do.
 * An immediate revert makes a mess of article histories and Special:RecentChanges.
 * It doesn't really hurt us to have random gibberish displayed on a few articles for a while, and for important pages such the Main Page we can always add temporary protection to make sure that visitors to the site aren't confused.

I don't think it's worthwhile trying to enforce any kind of policy for handling trolls, but it might be good if we could discuss the best way to deal with them when they show up. -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:56, 6 February 2007 (EST)


 * I don't like the approach. I wonder if having your hard work reverted in seconds by a team of 20+ users is a bit of a downer and causes them to wander off.  Anywho, if you look at User:(WT-en) Sapphire/Sandbox I've figured out the vandal's IP address and we could prevent it from creating more user names, which gives the vandal the power to move all these pages around.  Otherwise send an email to the ISP asking for their help. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 13:28, 6 February 2007 (EST)


 * While I think most trolls quickly wander away after half an hour of being quickly reverted, I do think that some are not put off by that.  Usually the pattern with an actual vandal (not just an unhappy editor) is that they fight the revert awhile, then they start attacking your talk page, then they give up.  But not every vandal fits this profile. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:40, 6 February 2007 (EST)


 * Congrats on tracking down the IP address, Andrew; the only long-term solution to all this is to hit the idiots where they live. This said, I don't think it's particularly useful to try to get inside the heads of the people that do this vandalism.  The real question is: what policy is best at meeting our goals?  Given that none of us (except Evan and Maj) do this for a living, and we have other demands on our time (I just happened to be home sick today -- no big deal, thanks -- and wouldn't have been able to help parry the attack otherwise), it seems to me that we just have to do what we can, when we can.  Simply adding some of the pages most frequently targeted by "real" troublemakers -- Talk:Main Page, etc. -- to our watchlists should let us catch the more serious vandalism when it occurs, without trying to implement a policy that doesn't meet the goal, won't necessarily work, and is incompatible with the way most of us do things here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:42, 6 February 2007 (EST)


 * In response to Andrew, bear in mind that whether it's on a wiki or on the local street corner, someone causing vandalism is generally doing so solely to get some sort of response from the people whose work is being vandalized. If there's no response, there's no payoff - it's more fun to play games when you're playing against someone. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:24, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Well, here's a chance to do the experiment. Guess who's back. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:25, 6 February 2007 (EST)


 * Just registered to this specific wiki, I had never seen such huge scale of 'edit attack' on other wikis. I must say I do not understand why someone would sit in front of his computer to spend his time to do such thing repeatedly, life can be boring, the weather can be bad but how does someone arrives at such low life level?

I was targeted upon registration by the following: User:(WT-en) Coon Duhh and User:(WT-en) Fragment of the Future, not really a nice welcome. (WT-en) Maplefanta 11:45, 15 December 2007 (EST)


 * See also Don't feed the troll. Pashley (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Brisbane
Those who make unwanted edits come in all shapes and sizes I guess... Special:Contributions/203.134.13.194 / Special:Contributions/203.134.111.194 has been a particularly persistent case, checking in several times a day to add apparently bogus info. Given a few weeks I expect he/she will go away, but in the mean time we've got well over a hundred edit/reverts in the article history. I somehow doubt this will be the only time we see this kind of behavior, so does anyone have any suggestions on how best to handle it in the future? The options I can see are:


 * 1) Try to engage the user.  This user doesn't seem to care about policies or consensus, and based on the talk pages for this IP on Wikipedia I suspect discussion probably won't work.
 * 2) Use the spam filter.  This has been tried, and the user simply changed the edit text to find ways around the patterns being used.
 * 3) Ban the user.  Not a great precedent to set, and bans are easy to get around.
 * 4) Protect the article.  Again, not a great solution as it prevents others from making edits.
 * 5) Use slow reverts, and simply wait this person out.  Not a great solution as it makes a mess of the article history.

Ideas or comments? -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:54, 24 February 2007 (EST)


 * I'll considered comment removed. -- (WT-en) Sapphire &bull; (Talk) &bull; 00:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)


 * If you take that approach I'd recommend staying away from the Myer Centre, as I hear it can be dangerous... -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:17, 24 February 2007 (EST)


 * I'm concerned this contributor may actually be mentally ill. His persistence rules out being a troll. Being poisoned three times implies that the person went back to Myer Centre after being poisoned twice, which does not sound rational.  So seriously, I think we need to go gently on this one -- either slow reverts or a temp ban to redirect his energies elsewhere. -- (WT-en) Colin 00:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)


 * When you say temp ban do you mean blocking the IP for a week or two or protecting the page? -- (WT-en) Sapphire &bull; (Talk) &bull; 00:15, 25 February 2007 (EST)
 * IP Block. -- (WT-en) Colin 00:16, 25 February 2007 (EST)


 * Have a look at the edit history on Wikipedia (here and here). Granted, it's a shared IP address, but the random edits to high school articles fits the pattern of a bored kid making stuff up.  In any case, no matter what this particular user's story is, do we have any better options than slow reverts or a temp ban?  What if we just leave the offending content on the article for a few days/weeks since someone will obviously remove it in the future?  If the consensus is to use a temp ban I wouldn't be opposed, although I really don't think bans are effective, and often have the opposite effect of making successful and notable vandalism into a challenge for someone to pursue. -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I was drink spiked, so I stayed away from where I was drink spiked, I was then gassed, so I stayed away from where I was gassed, then I was food spiked, so I eventually stopped going to the centre since it is crime ridden. I was spiked twice with GHB and gassed with hydrogen sulfide. I consider it disgusting that there are cameras all around and security did nothing about these incidents! So I'd rather warn people to stay away then go through what I have!


 * I'm having trouble figuring out how to cough the word psycho on a keyboard, so forgive my bluntness... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Why wonder how to cough it? I agree the people who spiked and gassed me ARE psychos! I cannot understand how this centre is allowed to operate while it is so crime ridden! If they cannot guarantee the safety of visitors it should be shut down permanently! Also, your wondering about my mental state of health? I'm wondering about why security thought it was okay to let someone be attacked three times, I was actually POISONED twice and gassed once. It is a huge place and was hoping it was just bad luck, three times confirmed it wasn't. I am definately not mentally ill.


 * Did you file a police report and if so what's the case number (or whatever it's called)? I'll send an email off to the Brisbane PD and check to see if your story can actually be collaborated.  Then all this will be settled. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 10:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I told them but was not given any case numbers,


 * What happened to you after these alleged incidents? Be very specific, as if you were telling the Queensland Police. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Also, when did this occur? Specific dates, please. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 21:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I became nauseous, dizzy and sick. I also don't have dates of the incidents.


 * I searched through the Queensland Police Department's records and I can't find anything similar to the story you keep telling. There has only been one recorded incident of a poisoning at the ball, but the person who did the reported the poisoning was the same person who placed the poison in the food.  She's been busted by the PD.  I have to say, I'm not buying the story and will work with the others to revert your addition of the story, unless you come up with clear proof it happened. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 00:46, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't care if you buy it or not, also, who cares about someone being poisoned at a ball, I was poisoned in the myer centre. Clear proof it happened? Not needed, due to the negligence of the myer centre security staff testing wasn't carried out. It did occur and a complaint was made, that's all that matters. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 123.200.240.176 (talk • contribs)

Scripts & Project:User ban nominations
The following is listed as policy, but seems to be ignored by most admins, myself included:


 * However, if a script is badly-behaved -- due to programming error or malicious intent -- an administrator can and should put a user ban on the IP address and/or user account the script is using. Again, the administrator should note the ban on the user ban nominations page, and the same procedure applies as for other bans.

I don't see the value in listing every IP for every script that hits the site on the ban page. If someone wants to ban a user it should go through the normal process, but do we really need an additional level of bureaucracy when fifty articles get hit with links to sex-with-ponies.com and an admin blocks the offending IP? Can this sentence be removed? -- (WT-en) Ryan (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Removing SPAM from the history?
Is it worthwhile to delete then immediately restore the last version of a page to avoid leaving the newly added spam in the article's history? I'm kind of for this idea, but if others are too, it would be nice to tweek the restore process a little to make it easier...

As of now you have to "check" all the boxes for the revisions you want to restore. If there's a lot of history, then that means a lot of clicking on each and every check box. So, can we somehow get them all to be checked by default, or add a "select all" button, so that we can then just "uncheck" the most recent (spam) edit, and thus quickly delete/restore pages? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)


 * There's no need to delete the histories for pages that have been spammed because Robots.txt tells search engines not to look at the histories or older versions, which effectively prevents spam urls from being indexed by sites like Google.


 * I was going to tell you, especially since you had to restore over 500 (600?) versions of the "Europe" article, but I wasn't 100% sure you were trying to remove it from the history. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 00:43, 24 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Oh, I guess I haven't paid enough attention, but I thought that was their whole point was so that it would up their google rating. Well good news if what you say is true. And yes, I was trying to get it out of the history... and stupidly I didn't actually check the history first, cause if I had I would have noticed that the last several edits were the same thing, so I only deleted the very last one, leaving several. Because sometimes I'm lame. So I guess I can't thing of another reason we would ever need to delete and restore. But if we do think of something, my request above would help a lot. I'm gonna stop talking now. ok. bye! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Challenges to policy?
I am uncomfortable with listing "challenges to policy" under "unwanted edits." It is my understanding that challenges to policy are beneficial to the sited and are very much "wanted edits," unless we are just feeling lazy. I do, however, think it should remain on the page under a different subheading&mdash;in order to indicate explicitly that these types of edits are welcome on Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Perhaps a better way to describe that section is "Defiance of policy". Speaking for myself, I don't want someone who disagrees with an established policy making edits that defy it; I want them to first change that policy (if they can), so that their subsequent edits are in agreement with policy. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:35, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I like that thought. I just tried to tweak the section to highlight the difference between defiance of and challenges to policy, but am not very confident I did a great job with it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:29, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Well done! --(WT-en) Evan 23:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Being one of frequent challengers of the policy, I believe the "policy on changing policies" should be more accessible and found more easily than it's now ("How to handle unwanted edits" is the last thing I would think of when I'm looking for how the policy is set up and changed). Things like "when I have something not fitting the current policy, should I discuss first, or make a practical precedent, or go ahead and change the policy itself first?" are very non-obvious now, and I would vote for having them explicitly defined, along with what's currently described in "Defiance of policy" section. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:03, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
 * BUMP ;-) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:11, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure advertising is necessary. The way it usually works is that a new user makes an edit X, it's rolled back, the user complains, and he's told that edit X goes against policy Y and he should raise the issue on Y's talk page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:20, 12 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Making something implicit to be described explicitly in a place we can easy refer to is not necessary to advertise it ;-) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 02:48, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

handling repeated adding of agencies and extlinks
We frequently revert adding of agencies and extlinks; as WT grows, more and more people revert. I think it's time to prepare a template that anyone can use on user's talk page to address anonymous or registered contributor who insists on adding his agency or extlink. Who can share your examples of such messages so we compile them in something anyone can use instantly? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)


 * For now, I plunged forward in Project:Welcome_message. Please welcome to fix whatever you feel wrong / incomplete about it. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:41, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Temp blocks
I just added a short bit about temp bans not requiring the nominations process, which have evolved into a general practice here, and I think there is consensus behind this. I defined them as less than a day, and only for extremely high-volume vandalism, and only for the express purpose of creating space to clean them up. Please revise as you see fit! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:01, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I suggest a two day discretionary admin block (which seems to be the norm) rather than one day.--(WT-en) Wandering 20:18, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Also, it's not clear if the short term one-day discretionary block should be recorded in the Project:user ban nominations page (or some other page). I suppose all bans should be recorded somewhere for review and as a record but the text does not say where.--(WT-en) Wandering 20:27, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

how to deal with content removal
I wonder if there's any objection if in future I choose to revert edits that remove useful content and give no explanation for removal (neither in Summary nor in Talk). I don't ask for policy to make that a rule yet--but after my experiment I would like to propose such a policy for everyone who patrol edits.

We had a case with MarinaK whom for many days many of us asked to stop vandalizing articles, while she was keeping removing content (with good intentions, but with both good and bad results). I spent two or three weeks of free time to revert MarinaK's edits I considered destructive, and I don't want to be that passive the next time I face [massive] content removal from a new (or other) user.

Are there any objections? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:36, 21 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I'm not going to object your personal actions, but I don't think it would be a good idea for this to be policy, not because I think it's good form to remove content without explaining yourself, but rather because there's quite a lot of (mostly anonymous) users that remove individual listings, probably validly, without explaining themselves. Simply reverting without attempting to either determine whether the removals are valid or discussing with the user might be seen as unfriendly.  I think any policy around unexplained removals needs to handle the fact that there are a rather large number of unexplained deletions, the majority of which are in fact likely valid.  (WT-en) JYolkowski 18:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I'm not certain that we need to write this into the policy, but no harm in registering my support for reverting unexplained content deletions. Sometimes users are removing closed businesses, but without so much as a edit summary, this can be very hard to verify. The majority of times I have tried to verify these types of edits, I've actually called the deleted listing and they were still open&mdash;unexplained content removal is very often deletion of rival businesses or just accidental deletion. I think reverts are fair in these instances, since making a lot of phone calls just to check recentchanges isn't at all practical. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)


 * The policy is and should be that you should use your judgement as to whether or not it's in good faith, that's basically the whole idea behind recentchanges patrolling. I tend to revert unexplained deletions, because I'd rather have a closed restaurant sit in the article a bit longer until it gets removed with a description. Putting a note on the talk page sometimes works too, see Talk:Dharamsala – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:01, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Difficult Users
Given some of the nastiness lately it seems worthwhile to have some discussion on a relevant talk page (it seems like there are tons of discussions happening on user pages). Here's my two cents:


 * 1) Page creation vandalism is subject to deletion, as discussed on Project:Deletion policy.
 * 2) Users who are trolling for attention are best ignored, and if they make disruptive edits those should be reverted (preferably using slow reverts).  This policy page spells out the reasoning.

There have been some temp blocks that we might be able to avoid by simply not engaging with the user in question - while trolling for attention may be a justified reason for a temp ban it would be nice if we could handle it without resorting to user bans. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 14:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)


 * I think I'd agree, but the big problem we have been having is in people responding to trolling, which makes slow reverts impossible without removing others' responses. Regarding page creation vandalism, I don't think we'll ever quite avoid confusion with people who haven't seen it before. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:55, 7 December 2008 (EST)


 * yeah, sounds good – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:05, 7 December 2008 (EST)


 * I agree with (WT-en) Ryan, and I would define a disruptive edit as something entirely unrelated to Wikivoyage or its goals. --(WT-en) Inas 17:27, 7 December 2008 (EST)


 * Hmm, we may be diverging then. I've always considered it appropriate to remove comments that are off-topic, ranting, and thereby disruptive to the discussion at hand. Especially in the case that this type of disruption isn't in response to, say, a difference over text in one article, but rather is being done at high volume site wide. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)


 * Doesn't sound like much a divergence to me. I'm yet to see an example of off-topic ranting that is related to the Wikivoyage goals, and I think its unlikely.  The desired outcome is to avoid sideshows from the main game, and deprive them of oxygen.  Would obviously be nice if this could be done with a combination of policy, patience, and strategic reversions (but possibly a little idealistic) --(WT-en) Inas 19:12, 7 December 2008 (EST)

OK, I sat back and started thinking about this, and I think we've been moving down a dangerous slippery slope lately, out of sheer frustration - and we should probably take a step back and breathe.
 * temp blocks shouldn't be more than 2 hours, without prior discussion for each individual case (spam bots etc. are of course exempted)
 * temp protections shouldn't be more than 2 hours either, but we seem to have a problem as noone seems to know how to do this for less than a day.
 * User should always be given a reason on his or her talk page, no matter how repetitive and tedious this gets.

And a question - I much prefer slow reverts, but is there any way we could discourage regular users to respond to a given users comments, which is what's making slow reverts hard?

Please remember, we're on the same platform as Wikipedia, so there is a huge number of users familiar with how wiki'ing works, it would be a sin to discourage those users, just to save time and energy. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 22:23, 9 December 2008 (EST)


 * I disagree that we should have set limits on temp blocks and protections. Different situations do call for different time limits&mdash;sometimes there's a move vandal that you know will wait out 2 hours, but will lose interest with a day-long block. I think admins have in the past done a good job using these temporary tools at their discretion.


 * More to the point though, we do have the occasional case (I'm thinking of two, in total) that is better dealt with by a practice outside of our usual operating procedures. And they are the two that we are discussing in this thread. In the first case, our page creation vandal, we do have a practice that diverges from our usual practices. We know who he is, we recognize him right away, and we treat his contributions differently from others. When just about anyone on Wikivoyage creates a stubby little page for some uninteresting destination, we try and add breadcrumbs and an outline, in order to integrate it with our worldwide guide. But it would be a waste of time and energy to do that for this one specific person, so we've devised a practice just for him.


 * In EE's case, we have someone who simply will not allow himself to be guided by the usual social constraints of advice, criticism, requests to stop, etc. That's not different from all sorts of vandals and trolls we've dealt with over the years. But what is different is the scale of this problem&mdash;while awake, he edits constantly and never tires of it, presumably because his motivation is very different from the usual bored vandal/troll. The best way I've figured out how to deal with this (and I don't see any reason to extend this practice beyond this one user) is to leave his productive edits alone, revert any disruptive or irrelevant edits, and temp block/protect (as appropriate) when he edit wars. I've been escalating the block durations for two reasons: 1) to try and drive the point home that it's not ok for him to edit war, and 2) in the hope that a longer break from his non-stop editing might chill him out a bit. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:18, 9 December 2008 (EST).


 * Well I do get your points, but my main worry is mainly in how other (new) users interpret this behaviour, WT haven't, at least to me, looked like a very welcoming and tolerant place as of late, which I know in a mild but weird paradox, is partly due to the noise EE has generated, but it's still nagging me. Anyway, I've set up some very concrete guidelines on his talk page - let's see if he can adhere to those. And I still think we should at least maintain a one day limit on bans with prior discussion. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 23:38, 9 December 2008 (EST)


 * Point taken. I assume you mean "maintain a one day limit on bans without prior discussion"? If so, that seems like a reasonable guideline to me, although I'd like to let the current ban run its course. I'm also in agreement that it would be good to leave an explanatory message on the user's talk page immediately after instituting a block. Oh and regarding <1 day protection durations, you can just enter an end time like "0400," or specify "3 hours." --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)


 * I understand we're just trying make a travel guide, and there is nothing more distracting than having to deal with irrelevancies. However, we have to take the good with the bead, and I feel as part of Fair Process, there should be a place where people can argue their own case.  Irrelevant edits scattered widely should be reverted, but there should be at least one legitimate place where, excluding abuse, people can present their case.  --(WT-en) Inas 22:50, 9 December 2008 (EST)


 * Fair enough. This, in the history of the site, has only been a problem in one case, but in any rate I'd say the user's own userspace would be the last refuge of a scoundrel's plea. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:18, 9 December 2008 (EST)


 * Fine, talk page is refuge, unless there are any personal attacks, I'll leave it alone. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 23:38, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Hey, I would just like to say sorry for the disruptions. I agree with Stefans words. Really, this could have been stopped had someone talked to me. But sorry and thank you for the idea Sertmann. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 23:09, 10 December 2008 (EST).

Reversions
Given that some admins have disagreed over temp blocks, I think we should also discuss reversions, since we've also been pushed to revert a bit further than we normally have in the past. I'm in favor of keeping a hard line on this, with very difficult users. We've been reverting any comments that are in any way disruptive, contain personal attacks, in any way resemble trolling, or that are about things other than writing a travel guide. User's talk pages won't be policed other than for personal attacks and vandalism. Naturally we don't enjoy removing conversations and have a habit of not doing so. But excessive trolling and repeated disruptive comments are distracting, and I'd like to know that there's consensus among admins if we need to continue it – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 14:47, 10 January 2009 (EST)


 * My preference with talk pages is that if a user edits his/her own talk page, and that edit is not spam, blatant advertising, or something truly vile such as pornography or hate speech, then we leave the edit alone. When someone edits any talk page other than their own then common sense rules apply as regards trolling and spam.  With respect to three of the cases you cited - "personal attacks", "in any way disruptive" and "things other than writing a travel guide" - these should not be reverted unless an effort has previously been made to educate a user about why some comments are inappropriate.  Reversion is in effect a repudiation of someone's views, and we should always err on the side of open discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 15:46, 10 January 2009 (EST)


 * I agree with Ryan's wording. I'd also like to err on the side of education rather than policing comments, which, unless blatant trolling/vandalism, should only be done as a last resort. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:25, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Attacks directed at individuals
There are very few instances on wikivoyage when it is justifiable to play the person, and not the ball. Allowing the user page as a haven for agressive language directed at an individual is a slippery slope. When is the abuse serious enough to warrant reversion? When is it defamatory or slander? In my opinion comments like are currently on User:(WT-en) Jo page may be considered defamatory.

Why play the game of determining whether the abuse is sufficiently severe? What is the justification in a travel guide of allowing personal abuse of individuals of any kind? How does it get us any closer to our goals?

I would like to suggest that we clarify the policy on abuse. Have a go at any policy, set of behaviours, or actions that you like. Aggressive language directed at an individual is contrary to our goals and our community and should be removed. --(WT-en) Inas 21:47, 11 January 2009 (EST)


 * I'd prefer to avoid policing user pages at all except in extreme resorts (porn, hate speech, spam). If a user page is insulting or even abusive towards other users I think we only need to get involved if the "victim" of the abuse wants something done.  If (WT-en) Colin felt strongly enough about what (WT-en) Jo wrote then I think it might be worth discussing, but otherwise I don't think we want to be in the business of policing user pages. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 21:53, 11 January 2009 (EST)


 * I enjoy writing travel articles for wikivoyage, and I realise that there is some admin effort to be put into the site, to keep it running.  I don't think this admin effort should be left to others, and I'm happy to do my share.  However, I understand that performing this admin effort sometimes treads on peoples toes.  Vandals in the past have posted personal and obscene remarks about me on their home pages while I have been patiently reverting their edits.  I have reverted those changes also, but also others have been kind enough to do this for me on occasion.  I would like to feel that if someone was using their home page for personal attacks, as a result of the work that I was doing to help wikivoyage in good faith, that I would have the support of the community in removing those attacks.  Do I?  --(WT-en) Inas 22:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)


 * There is a difference between vandalism, which we always revert, and insults by strong-willed editors. I've been called all manner of things in my time here by people, some of whom have made excellent contributions to the site - it can be unpleasant, but it's a reality of having so many different personalities working together that some people will be less diplomatic than others.  I've been struggling over how to put something into policy that avoids turning editors into censors of rude and strongly-worded comments, and I'm not coming up with a good solution.  I really, really feel that Wikivoyage works best when we are focusing on what SHOULD be written, and that we do poorly when we try to decide what SHOULD NOT be written.  In this case, I think that unless we're talking about hate speech, porn, or spam, if someone wants to be rude or insulting we are better off ignoring it or dealing with it on a case-by-case basis (and only when necessary) instead of putting ourselves in a position where a statement like "I think you're being an ass" (which is inappropriate but common) devolves into an edit war. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:31, 11 January 2009 (EST)


 * I think we disagree. We have many many policies on what should not be written.  There is a poor irony that we even have policies against negative reviews of establishments in articles.  I'm not suggesting mass policing of user pages.  I just think that we need a stake in the ground.  Personal attacks are not tolerated on wikivoyage.  Play the policy, the action, and not the person.  If you make a personal attack it is liable to be removed.  Doesn't mean with need to seek them out, but it puts the person trying to do the right thing on solid ground, with demonstrated support of the community.  --(WT-en) Inas 22:44, 11 January 2009 (EST)


 * For what it's worth, if a vandal starts calling you names on your homepage, that means you have already won. It's the last stage in frustration for a vandal who is about to leave. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:18, 16 January 2009 (EST)


 * It's pretty much a truth that if you affect someone else on the internet -- for example, by editing someone's contributions -- you will often be on the receiving end of criticism and occasional harsh language. I don't see any way of fixing that, and I'm sure it costs us people who would otherwise be editors.  My best suggestion is first to ignore it.  If an editor is up to it, remember to Assume Good Faith while being criticized: try to see if there is a point within the vitriol and consider how or whether to address the genuine issue.  I find that the skills I've learned on the Net have really helped me avoid taking things personally in real life.  So it's a painful route to becoming a better person. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:18, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Permanent bans
To quote: "User bans are an extreme last resort for us. They are embarassing, because they are an admission that our community is not strong, patient, and professional enough to deal with unwanted edits using the simple freedom built into the Wiki way."

First of all, I would submit that bans are part of the Wiki way. There's a reason MediaWiki includes the option, and it's because sometimes it's the most efficient way to deal with egregious vandalism. We may not like to have to resort to them, but sometimes they are necessary.

When necessary, though, the policy states that we must put the ban up for a vote in every case. This seems to contradict the part of the policy that says "What you should not do It is best to never acknowledge an act of vandalism ...". I suggest that in certain cases, it is far better to just block an obvious troll and be done with him or her than to initiate a discussion and allow him or her to see that he or she's successfully pulled us away from our work to discuss him or her.

Of course, if the case is anything but clear-cut, it should be discussed. But in those clear-cut cases, mandating a discussion accomplishes little except letting the vandal waste our time.

This is just my opinion, though.

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 13:57, 14 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I think permanent bans are usually unnecessary, except in the case of user or bot impersonation... several of those on the permanent list right now were administrator impersonators, and I think should remain in effect. I don't think we should permanent ban or even block solely for obscene usernames, at least not before a consensus is built to do so... but most of them are established to troll and vandalize anyway, and will usually be blocked for those reasons instead – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 14:23, 14 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I do think the policy is pretty clear as written, although it might be useful to make it more clear that Wikivoyage policy does not distinguish between the terms "ban" and "block," since this has been a point of confusion in the past as well. As a general rule, I think any use of hard tools like protections/blocks that are unnecessary/ineffective should be avoided&mdash;Wikivoyage is considerably more open than most wikis, and that's both a founding philosophy and rather a point of pride. Temp blocks for move vandalism, or other very high volume and rapid vandalism is useful just to slow it down and create room to clean up, but I don't think that a block of more than one day is ever necessary for this. Permanent bans are ineffective, since users can just change their ips, or register new accounts.


 * The permanent bans we do use are those that prevent the use of an unacceptable user name. Thus far that has only been applied to impersonating usernames, but I would like to see that widened. There is one user account in particular at special:ipblocklist that seems to me unacceptable, both for profanity and for cyberbullying. I'd definitely like to allow permanent blocks for cyberbullying names. Profanity is a trickier issue (where do you draw the line?), and potentially a slippery slope. Although cultural slurs might be a good place to start. This is a more important issue on Wikivoyage than most other wikis, since we attribute contributors visibly at the bottom of each article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:36, 14 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Forgot to respond to the point about ban nominations going against our goal of not drawing attention to trolling/vandalism&mdash;that is a good point, but I think we can mitigate that problem by hyperlinking to the user's contributions, and not printing the actual name on the ban nomination page. That wouldn't always be appropriate, but for usernames that are designed to agitate, I think that would be useful.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:45, 14 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I agree that we could widen the scope of unacceptable usernames. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:03, 14 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I think we should distinguish between bans and blocks, especially now that they're entering into our consciousness a bit more now... blocks are more short term, bans are permanent or long term, right? I don't have a real problem with starting a username policy, but as Peter said it's hard to know where to draw the line, and becomes another thing to police. So far it hasn't been an issue since all of the offensive ones created have been used for vandalism and trolling – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:41, 15 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I think that it would just muddle things to use these as separate terms. There is but one sysop function, and we can distinguish between short term and long term by just specifying the length of time (the basic relevant terms being "≤1 day," ">1 day," and "infinite").


 * I think the issue is preventing really unacceptable usernames, like the one referred to above, from showing up at the bottom of articles. This problem doesn't arise if we properly revert the edits, but if there are intervening edits then we don't have the ability to remove them by hand (aside from painstaking page restorations). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:12, 15 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Drawing the line as a matter of policy would be very difficult, but doing it via nomination/discussion is much less so. I'm going to go forward and unblock the rest of the permanent bans that don't meet our policy standards, but I will leave the most offensive one blocked, and will put it up on the nominations page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:12, 15 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Cacahuate, the distinction between "block" and "ban" (on Wikipedia, at least) is that a block is a technical measure, usually used to implement or enforce a ban, which is a consensus opinion that a particular user shouldn't be contributing to the wiki. Thus, a user could be banned but not blocked if that technical measure was overlooked or seen as unnecessary, and a user could be blocked but not banned if the block was performed without consensus or as a strictly temporary measure.  Note that a ban needn't be indefinite; EE's one-month break was clearly a ban (and it was one that was almost implemented without a block being used) despite it being of limited duration.
 * Using that terminology, then, it is "banning" that the Wikivoyage community abhors, maintaining the "block" as a necessary technical measure for limited other applications.
 * -- (WT-en) LtPowers 08:27, 16 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Two more infinite blocks were instated this month for page move vandalism.... are we going to fix policy or unblock them? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 20:25, 18 May 2009 (EDT)


 * I agree with (WT-en) LtPowers that we should widen the scope of unacceptable usernames. I think a vandal drawing us into a ban nomination and seconding process for an obscene username created to vandalise is giving them a victory of sorts.   Since this isn't particular to wikivoyage, I think we should just steal the wikipedia policy on usernames.  Blocked on sight by admin, or when alerted to an admin, and then if anyone at all disagrees - they can be nominated and discussed.   --(WT-en) Inas 21:38, 18 May 2009 (EDT)


 * In fairness too, the blocks are of the same person, who already has been nominated, with support. I support Ian's proposal, provided it is limited to obviously obscene usernames. Otherwise I think we can just stick to temp bans for page move vandalism (since vandals can just create new accounts). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:50, 18 May 2009 (EDT)


 * In my opinion, the problem with the page move vandal (Willy on Wheels?) isn't his usernames, it's his actions. It's the same guy, we know him on sight, he's never contributed anything useful, and he's been blocked umpty-ump times before, so we can block him again as soon as he starts misbehaving again.


 * Now, we might someday need an obscene names policy if we start getting factual, comprehensive and incredibly useful edits from a User:(WT-en) Anal Cunt... but until then, this is a hypothetical problem. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:38, 18 May 2009 (EDT)


 * (provided no one mistakenly edits a vandalized page before the vandalism is reverted.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:01, 18 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at? AFAIK Mediawiki doesn't have a mechanism to prefilter obscene names, and any such blacklist would be trivial to circumvent anyway -- one of the aforementioned usernamed already used "çunt" with a ç.  And if the username gets into the history, there's not much that can be done about that either... (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:12, 18 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Now I'm confused too&mdash;I think this discussion is just about the leeway we have in blocking users with obscene usernames, not anything about blacklisting them. And yeah, keeping them out of the article history is impossible, but it's nice to keep them off the article itself. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:16, 18 May 2009 (EDT)


 * We have current issue where admins have been indefinitely blocking users who have been indulging in vandalism, and who have created obscene user names. This was raised by (WT-en) cacahuate as a breach of current policy.   We are simply trying to legitimise the action, and avoid the situation where a vandal can create obscene user names and have fun watching us list them in order to have a block of longer than 24 hours.  Lets change the policy to allow an indefinite block on obscene usernames,  that legitimises the current practice, does no harm to wikivoyage.  If anyone wishes to object to a block, they can do so, and use the current process.  --(WT-en) Inas 23:30, 18 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Again, I object to a blanket ban on "obscene" usernames.  However, I'm perfectly fine with an indefinite ban on all manifestations of "the page move vandal", who changes usernames often, but can be identified easily because he repeatedly moves pages to silly titles. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:44, 18 May 2009 (EDT)


 * I can't see how that can be framed into a policy. The creation of these obscene usernames is a form of vandalism in itself. I'm sure the vandals consider it to be.  IMO trying to frame a policy based on "the move page vandal", is considerably more arbitrary and subject to scope creep, and is far more likely to result in bans, than an obscene username bans you are trying to avoid.  Anyway, I'd be interested to see what others have to say..  --(WT-en) Inas 23:53, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Range blocks
Mr. Guillaime brought up the idea of using range blocks to combat vandalbots running across a specific subnet. They wouldn't be hard to enable, but they're a really heavy-duty tool, so I thought some discussion would be in order. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:17, 20 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I think it's a good idea, Wikipedia admins all have this tool no? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:25, 20 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Yes, sysops on all Wikimedia wikis have it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:49, 20 April 2009 (EDT)


 * No more comments? The point of having this tool would be to stop vandalbots that change ips rapidly and hit large numbers of pages. We had a problem with this type of vandalism recently, and this tool would be the only effective way of halting it that I know of. Were a vandalbot of this nature simply let loose with no time constraints, that would be a problem that we could not really solve with the tools we currently have.


 * If we do introduce it, I think we should have a very strict policy governing its use&mdash;I would propose no range bans lasting more than two hours without a ban nomination, and that the tool should only be used in extreme situations (as described above). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:27, 24 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I can't think of any reason not to. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:08, 24 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Alright, I'll rfc this just to make sure that people aren't missing it (have administrators forgotten to watchlist this page?). If no one objects, I'll put in a tech request at the beginning of May. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:34, 26 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Sounds good – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 11:29, 30 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Provided usage is limited (no more than 2-24 hours without a nomination) I'm fine with this. I'd suggest we specify that usage of this tool should be rare, but if it's limited to sysops that shouldn't be a problem. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 15:13, 30 April 2009 (EDT)


 * And provided that account creation is not disabled. These bots that you are referring to don't seem to create accounts.  --(WT-en) Inas 19:13, 30 April 2009 (EDT)


 * OK, I'm actually a bit surprised at just how much support there is for this mechanism. It is kind of nice to see a new consensus formed&mdash;we haven't had many of those lately... Anyway, I'm filing a tech request that will probably go ignored. If the tech team never gets back to us, I'd recommend someone other than me pesters them to do it, since I no longer have a very good relationship with them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:07, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Range blocks policy
Now that range blocks have been activated, we need a clear policy to govern their use. The first bit should simply be: Unless you are well-versed in the proper usage of these blocks, do not use them. That includes me—the technical details of range block implementation is a bit over my head, so I have no intention of risking them.

Beyond that, some basic rules should include length (short!) and how wide a range would be acceptable. I would say an initial limit of one hour would make sense. The second part is not something I would know. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:40, 24 August 2011 (EDT)


 * See for an overview of the tool and wikipedia:Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses for Wikipedia's policy. How about:


 * Range blocks are an exceedingly powerful and potentially dangerous tool that can be used to combat particularly tech-savvy vandals by blocking an entire range of IP addresses from which they are attacking the site. Details of their usage can be found at .  While this is a tool that hopefully will not need to be used the following guidelines are in place should such a block be required:


 * Unless you are well-versed in the proper usage of these blocks, do not use them.
 * A range block is a last resort. Do not implement a range block unless blocking individual IP addresses becomes impractical.
 * A range block should be implemented for the shortest time period possible to stop any vandalism. In general, the larger the range of addresses being blocked, the shorter the block should be.  Like most short-term blocks, a block of 1-2 hours is generally a good start, with increasing time periods allowable for repeat offenders.
 * Any block of more than one day requires a ban nomination.
 * Range blocks should always be made for the smallest possible range of IP addresses.


 * -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 21:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Page move vandalism
The ability to move pages should be confined to administrators, like the delete button and the rollback button. Page moves are a popular target for spree vandalism, and there's no purpose served by having it open to everyone &mdash; it's not like the task of moving pages is so frequent and onerous that the entire site needs to pitch in. At very least, it should be restricted to users who have reached X number of edits or months as a registered user. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:09, 19 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Restricting moves to administrators seems a bit too strict to me, as non-administrators make a lot of good use of the tool, and I'd hate to see more tasks fall within the sysop-only category. (I'd really like to see the "auto-delete on move reverts" feature implemented, but our tech team is near-worthless.) I definitely would, however, support restricting moves to 30-day users, as we do for patrolled edits. (Sadly, this again would necessitate support from our tech support, which is not supportive.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:19, 19 May 2009 (EDT)


 * I tend to agree with Peter here. I don't think the inability to move pages is going to be a huge deterrent to new users, but there's no need to keep all non-admins from using the tool.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)


 * But then why don't we hand the 'delete' button to the entire user base as well? Some non-administrators would make good use of the delete button, and we'd get the occasional vandalism spree with it, which would be time intensive to clean up...exactly like the 'move' button. At very least, restricting access to long-established users is a common sense decision. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:35, 19 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Well, if we allow both moves and deletes, a lot more damage can be done than with just one or the other. That might have something to do with it.  (WT-en) LtPowers 18:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)


 * I'm with Gorilla Jones here. I think the/we admins are usually very responsive (atleast for these types of things), so if we make a non bureaucratic move request page without votes and all that Jazz, and direct any discussions to the respective talk pages, I can't see a request go unnoticed for more than a few hours. But I'd also much prefer limiting it to 30-day users if that would be possible --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 18:56, 19 May 2009 (EDT)


 * If I understand the mediawiki config correctly, we must already have a group setup for 30 day users (to enable them to patrol) and we must already have group for sysops. Therefore the complexity in restricting moves to 30 day users and to sysops would be identical.  So, if the preference is for 30-day users, then why not do that?  --(WT-en) Inas 19:42, 19 May 2009 (EDT)


 * On Wikipedia this stuff I don't think is allowed for non users, so if we keep it to only registered users, or perhaps ones that have been here for a month, like that patrolling. That would be good.  The same can be done for creating articles.  But thats a different topic.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 19:59, 19 May 2009 (EDT).

criticizing a competitor
I wonder how we differentiate "add the business I own and leave a negative feedback for the competitor's" from genuine contributoions of travellers "I didn't like this, but found an alternative".

Right now I'm about and, but I face similar question one or two times per month. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:53, 4 July 2009 (EDT)


 * I feel like I've seen more of these sort of suspicious edits lately. The only thing to do, I think, is to just undo the negative comments per Project:Avoid negative reviews. If there is a real problem with the place, and it's not just slander from a competitor, then hopefully the contributor will bring it up on the talk page?  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:16, 4 July 2009 (EDT)


 * Thanks Peter, I followed your advice. Any objections to adding something like this to the policy? Where we should stick it? And not sure I understood how exactly this advice is related to Project:Avoid negative reviews. Could you explain please? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:20, 4 July 2009 (EDT)


 * A review that says something negative about a location is a negative review. Your example clearly adds a negative twist to the listing. I think it fits.


 * While all edits are welcome, those from anonymous users are naturally up for greater scrutiny. Users with usernames can build trust in the community, which I think is important when considering when to keep or remove negative reviews, and when they are in question, it can be brought up on the user's Talk Page. It's a benefit of having an account. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:33, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Marking edits as patrolled
This might not be the right place to ask this question and if there is a patrolling discussion page anywhere please direct me there. I suspect not, but is there way to mark more than one edit at a time of the same article as patrolled? Eg, when an anon user makes 15 good edits in short time, can they all be marked as patrolled in one hit? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:05, 1 December 2009 (EST)


 * If you go to "Preferences" then "Recent Changes" there is an "Enhanced Recent Changes" option. Selecting that will show recent changes grouped by article.  You can then click on the "X changes" link to see all changes to the article and mark them all patrolled at once if appropriate. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 12:07, 1 December 2009 (EST)


 * Thanks Ryan and thanks Peter for the link to Project:Recent changes patrol. That was so easy.... I was trying to do it from the history screen for the page. Thanks again. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:44, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Unacceptable usernames
Is there any way we would ever allow (WT-en) this user to edit? The very username results in a perception of bias, even if the user was making otherwise acceptable edits (which it isn't). (WT-en) LtPowers 09:33, 13 October 2011 (EDT)


 * We've been pretty liberal with user names in the past - the first page of Special:Listusers has some pretty extreme examples - so if you're proposing a permanent block I would instead suggest just using the standard rules for vandals and use blocks of increasing length. Current policy is that only doppelgangers and spambots should be permanently blocked without a nomination. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 10:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)


 * I don't see the point of escalating blocks in this case, because no edit it ever makes could ever possibly be acceptable. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:10, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Policy for blocking multiple vandal accounts
At Project:User ban nominations I stated that I had permanently blocked several accounts created by a high-volume vandal, and it was noted that the policy I cited as justification isn't completely applicable. I can't possibly imagine why it would be a good idea to allow a known vandal to have more than one registered account - while I hate to acknowledge a troll, for the purposes of discussion see the following for this particular user's history (also see recent changes on shared from 12-April, and Special:Logs/delete for the past two weeks):


 * Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Heecf
 * Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Heecfyahoo.ca
 * Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Fceehyahoo.ca
 * Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Fceeh
 * Special:Contributions/(WT-en) LAITH10
 * Special:Contributions/(WT-en) 01HTIAL
 * Special:Contributions/216.66.130.69
 * Special:Contributions/216.66.139.36
 * Special:Contributions/216.66.165.141
 * ...and at least a dozen more

I'd propose the following addition to policy:


 * When multiple registered accounts have been created by a single user for the purposes of vandalism, those accounts are subject to permanent blocking without the need for a nomination. If the user later demonstrates a desire to contribute constructively they can request that one of the accounts be unblocked.  The reason for this policy is that a user account has rights and abilities that an anonymous account does not (auto-patrolled edits, the ability to move a page, ability to upload files, etc), and a known malicious user with access to numerous accounts thus has the potential to damage the site in ways that an anonymous user cannot.  Please note that if a vandal is using a single account then that account is subject to the normal rules with respect to blocks and nominations.

-- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 13:53, 14 April 2012 (EDT)


 * Not at all wanting to stop any policy which allows us to discourage vandals, but does this mean that a user with a single account or anon has to go through the normal increasing block/nomination process, but one who creates two accounts that we suspect are linked that they can both be blocked indefinitely without nomination? --(WT-en) Inas 00:15, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * That's a good point, although I'm having trouble putting into words an appropriate guideline that would allow permanently blocking a dozen sock puppets of someone who is causing significant distraction, but which also makes it clear that if a few individuals in a school computer class decides to write "I like poop" in a couple of articles that we don't come down hard on them. What about something like "While individuals who deface a handful of pages can be annoying, such edits should be handled with simple reverts.  However, some individuals may return repeatedly to deface dozens or even hundreds of pages.  In such cases, if the user in question creates multiple accounts..." ? -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 00:48, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * That looks like good phrasing to me. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 03:19, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * First, I wanted to point out our very obscure "non-policy" on Project:Sock puppets. Second, can we return to the problem of identifying them—are there tools for identifying sock puppets that we don't have (but which are available to admins on other wikis)? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:15, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Let's (not) talk about forks
I submit that a fork of an existing wiki is demonstrably detrimental to that wiki. The only benefit to discussing a fork is the potential benefit to the new project, and none to the existing one. I propose the following policy, which is conspicuously and detrimentally absent from Wikivoyage:


 * Discussions of forking the content of this Project are inappropriate and detrimental to Wikivoyage. Anyone wishing to participate in such discussions is welcome to do so offline or elsewhere; but Wikivoyage is under no obligation to provide a forum for self-destructive behavior. Discussions of forking Wikivoyage content are not to take place on Wikivoyage.--(WT-en) IBobi 21:39, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) IBobi (talk • contribs)


 * I think this wording is too harsh, and the suggested policy too far reaching, leading to outright censorship. That has been the tack that IB has taken in the past to deal with criticism from the communities they have "run," and it has only led to terrible press for them of the sort that have encouraged the fork you don't want to talk about. I have no problem with a softer policy that requests that discussions regarding forks happen off this site, but to try and scrub out all mentions of their existence would be wrong. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:27, 2 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Can you suggest an alternate wording that is not so harsh? Everything but the last line?--(WT-en) IBobi 21:39, 2 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I'm uncomfortable with this proposal. While I think discussion of forking was inappropriate on Wikivoyage in the past and at present (note: inappropriate, not something that should have been disallowed), I'm concerned that the current policy proposal was made with the goal of silencing a discussion, which reeks of censorship.  The proper response to a fork proposal is to state why it's a bad idea, not to delete the discussion, and this was indeed the approach taken in the past - see for example one of the site's co-founders response at User talk:(WT-en) Hansm/Commercialisation FAQ.  Beyond that, the Project:Don't tout guideline should be sufficient if any such discussion turns promotional. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:03, 2 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I'm not convinced a policy is needed. For better or for worse, wikis are meant for open discussion and a project fork is noted as a viable (if undesired) option on the policy part of this page. As long as a discussion regarding a fork respects our normal guidelines for edits, I think a discussion about a fork is well within scope of the Pub or a Talk page. As Ryan said above, the best response to a fork proposal is to state why it's a bad idea, not to delete it. -(WT-en) Shaund 23:03, 2 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I'm against a flat-out ban too. If you ban that, pretty soon you'll be censoring talk about spoons, knives, sporks, tongs, and chopsticks too. In all seriousness though, a policy is not needed and would be counterproductive,making IB look even more like the bad guy for deleting it without even trying to get to the bottom of it and figure out why the community finds it necessary and/or offer solutions/counter arguments. That said, I don't think you'll see a lot of touting about it here. We just wanted to warn folks, that's all. (WT-en) texugo 23:59, 2 July 2012 (EDT)


 * +1 to all of the above. (WT-en) jpatokal 00:16, 3 July 2012 (EDT)


 * A fork is disruptive, yes, but it's creative disruption in many cases. And in any case, if a fork does take place, contributors to the site have a right to know about it.  The "Right to Fork" is an inherent concept in the open source community, of which Wikivoyage is a part.  Some choice quotations from that link: "What's unique to free software projects in this perspective is the lack of physical property, so the only sacrifice is the loss of connection with the members left behind. Managing such projects to avoid forks requires more openess and tolerance, since the loss implied by a fork is smaller."; "Others recognize that a fork is mostly acrimonious in cases where there has been at least a perceived failure of leadership."  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:58, 3 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I believe that under normal circumstances, in a healthy wiki community, a mere pointer to a discussion about a potential fork is not the same as touting. A potential fork is of such direct interest to a community, that the people involved have a right to know something is going on. I would always be against any policy preventing the mentioning of relevant plans elsewhere. I can however see how in-depth discussion on the how's and when's of a fork can be considered bad faith or bad taste at least. Therefore, I wouldn't have a problem with such deeper discussions being discouraged or even banned at the original site, but I don't think it's simply a case of hard policy. A wiki community has a high level of self-regulation, as in fact was shown immediately by Peter's request to not discuss in the Pub, or on WT in general. For the record, I too thought the plain removal of comments there by an IB employee was a mistake, making it painfully clear once more that IB struggles with how a wiki community works.
 * The problem is not that pointer to a discussion elsewhere. If this were a blooming project with a happy community, that pointer would arouse more opposition and arguments against, than anything else. Then, the community of the Wikimedia Projects would also be more hesitant to take steps which can indeed be destructive to the community here. The real problem is, this is not a blooming project nor a happy community, and an overwhelming majority of active members believe the goals of the project (the content!) are better off elsewhere. Visitor numbers are not the same as community. Not at all, in fact. Now, with all this in mind, I oppose to a full-out ban of fork-discussions and do not feel a speedy draft of any policy is useful at this very moment. The process this proposal wishes to silence is already far to advanced to be influenced by a ban of relevant comments here on Wikivoyage, anyway. (WT-en) Justme 18:11, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Important - blocking spambots
I'm not sure what's going on, but recently several pages that are obviously spambot creations have shown up as credited to non-spambot users. I'm also seeing entries in the user creation log where a non-spambot user "creates" a spambot account - for example. I'm guessing a bot is exploiting a security hole somewhere in the current Mediawiki version to allow impersonating other users, but until this gets resolved admins should be careful about permanently blocking spambot users since the "user" credited as creating spam pages may not actually have created the page. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 18:59, 14 July 2012 (EDT)


 * This could potentially be an exploit for, which was fixed in Mediawiki 1.17.2 - the site is currently running 1.17.0. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:20, 14 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Good call. I'd consider this an emergency situation that requires an immediate patch.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:25, 14 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Tech is investigating.--(WT-en) IBobi talk email 13:15, 16 July 2012 (EDT)


 * See also en:User talk:(WT-en) AHeneen. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:59, 16 July 2012 (EDT)


 * UPDATE -- tech is testing the patch today and tomorrow. Hope to implement this week.--(WT-en) IBobi talk email 14:16, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm logged in with Chrome right now for the first time since the upgrade. The first time I tried it, I got the same "session hijack" warning that AHeneen reported. I immediately hit logout (I appeared to be logged in as a spambot) and re-logged in without problem. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:46, 18 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Your account is credited as having created User:(WT-en) Towandaorob and User:(WT-en) 72x64libb, so this looks like the same issue. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 15:41, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
 * I have increasing troubles to delete spambot created pages. Even if i delete and block, they stay in the recentchanges page. If i try to delete them again, then it shows me that i have already deleted it. I use Firefox and cleaning up is really nasty at the moment. (WT-en) Jc8136 16:08, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
 * See wts:WtTech:Delete Working Inconsistently. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 17:50, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

This is an awful problem to have lived with for a week. It's messing up our contributors' contributions histories, which will be real lasting damage, and it's very hard to patrol edits when trusted accounts are being hijacked by bots. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:52, 20 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Understood, everyone. We've been testing the patch internally on staging servers all week, and it is expected to resolve the spambot issue as well as the deletion error.


 * We are reluctant to make this update today because it is before the weekend, and it is a very large change. When implemented it will also require the cache to reload, which will cause the site to be slow for a few hours as pages are recached. Again, we will implement on Monday 7/23/2012. Thank you for your patience and contributions in getting this handled.--(WT-en) IBobi talk email 16:10, 20 July 2012 (EDT)


 * This is now causing serious collateral damage to real users, per this account -- accidentally blocked because the system mixed up their valid login with a blocked spambot. Until this is fixed, I'm going to have to stop blocking spambots entirely to avoid such damage and recommend that other administrators do the same, which is only marginally the best of two terrible solutions.  A fix is urgently needed.  -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 12:25, 24 July 2012 (EDT)


 * It looks like the upgrade to 1.17.5 happened some time this morning, so it would be good to watch and see if the incorrect attribution problem re-occurs. If a couple of days go by without seeing the issue again then it's probably safe to say that this has been resolved. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 13:18, 24 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Yes indeed. We're hoping the spambot issue is resolved now, though there does seem to be an indication that the deletion intermittent error is still happening. We'll keep watching. Thank you,--(WT-en) IBobi talk email 14:15, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

While the amount of spambots is significantly reduced today and my deletions were successful i just come across one deletion that didn't work. Jani deleted and it was still in recent changes as not deleted. It's the only missed deletion today, so it might be worth to check. (WT-en) Jc8136 09:37, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
 * I tried to block User:(WT-en) Sifang65tl to it took two trials to finally delete the spam. I don't know if someone else has this issue today? (WT-en) Jc8136 11:28, 25 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I've been afraid to block anyone for what seems like a couple weeks now, since I just don't know what's going to happen. Looking back on it, though, I probably should have blocked myself when my account was, presumably, compromised. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:06, 25 July 2012 (EDT)


 * It's definitely still happening; yesterday I successfully made deletions on several spambot accounts that had been persistently resisting deletion by other mods (Ryan), but came across one that I was not able to delete after 4 tries Towandaorob; I just tried again and still cannot delete it.
 * Our techs are investigating a misconnection between the WT database and mySQL as a possible culprit, and I'll keep you updated on progress.--(WT-en) IBobi talk email 14:09, 25 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I'm fairly confident no accounts have actually been compromised by the session hijacking (and at any rate, I think admins can unblock themselves so it's questionable how effective a block would be anyway). (WT-en) LtPowers 14:55, 25 July 2012 (EDT)


 * No accounts have been compromised, it's true. The issue is one where new accounts could be spawned off of existing ones. I concur, blocking our own accounts is probably not effective, as the bots will just use other existing accounts. Now, if ALL accounts were blocked, I would be curious to see what would happen; but that's a long way to go for curiosity ;)--(WT-en) IBobi talk email 15:25, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Shaund and i tried to delete [] but it was not possible to delete that newly created spam. Can someone else try to delete it? (WT-en) Jc8136 03:11, 26 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Mates, things get worse: Project:Votes_for_deletion This user was blocked and its page protected but it didn't work! I think that's a new level. (WT-en) Jc8136 07:19, 26 July 2012 (EDT)


 * It appears that the 1.17.5 patch did not have the intended effect of stopping spambots from spawning new accounts. We will continue to investigate a solution.--(WT-en) IBobi talk email 18:43, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

IBobi: How is your plan to solve this issue? Any strategy? The contamination of the spambot attacks requires a lot of capacity that is lost for other aims. (WT-en) Jc8136 07:54, 31 July 2012 (EDT)


 * The immediate response, as suggested above, was to patch the site with 1.17.5, which we did. All software updates are resource intensive, and in this case it did not resolve the issue, so tech is looking further at this. I will post an update as soon as I have one.--(WT-en) IBobi talk email 14:20, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Yesterday the cache was totally cleared; this slowed the site but also propagated all new changes from the 1.17.5 patch; please report if the spambot issue persists today.--(WT-en) IBobi talk email 18:25, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Vandals getting around blocks
How is this vandal that I blocked able to still make edits, as an unregistered user, to a page that I protected from edits by unregistered users? See User talk:216.66.167.98 (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 21:27, 29 April 2012 (EDT)


 * A blocked user can still edit his talk page with the current Mediawiki version. Similarly, it doesn't appear that protecting a page has any effect unless the page exists - you can create a page with a note indicating why it will be protected and then protect it, and things should work as expected. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:00, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Can't log in with WMF account
I seem to be having some trouble logging into my WMF account here due to the local blacklists:



I've had the WMF username 'Brion VIBBER' with last name capitalized since 2001-2002, so it'd be nice to not have to change it. Any chance this blacklist rule could be lifted? It looks like it will affect other people using the 'capitalized family name' convention as well. --User:Brion VIBBER
 * For those who don't know, Brion is a bit of a legend in WMF circles, second in fame only to Jimbo... This, that and the other (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See above. Maybe you can use the same trick by creating a new account with a different name and then requesting renaming? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that blacklisting an author of MediaWiki was a very good idea... K7L (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Titleblacklist updated. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 16:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, K7L? LtPowers (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously. Special:Version "This wiki is powered by MediaWiki, copyright © 2001-2012 Magnus Manske, Brion Vibber, Lee Daniel Crocker, Tim Starling..." K7L (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, are you seriously accusing us of singling out Brion Vibber on the blacklist? LtPowers (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe he was joking Lt. :-) The  helpful  one  20:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Concentrate on the edit, not the editor
Shortly, when we leave Beta, there will be a massive influx of editors, many not bothering to ever register an account.

It's all very exciting trying to ferret out who is an IB employee and or agent or alleging (often without any substantive proof) who is the puppet master of whom but I am concerned that all of this is, at the very least, not very productive and, in many cases, counter-productive to our goal of creating a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide.

I would like to suggest that we

a) develop clear guidelines for using User Talk pages - where, I think the guidelines need to be subtly different from using Article Discussion pages.

b) enjoin all experienced editors (and especially admins and bureaucrats) to set a good example and not allow themselves to be drawn into character or identity arguments that, when one steps back from the affray to cogitate for a while, it is not necessary to start or continue. This also applies to sly digs and innuendoes. If there is a personal issue important enough to warrant even a peripheral reference then there should be a clear policy, allegation page and procedure for initiating the allegation and adjudicating the response.

c) clarify further our policies so that they both conform to natural justice and are effective in preventing too much time wasting and administrative overhead.

In this regard, while it is obviously useful to have a private channel such as Google groups where sensitive matters such as breaches of privacy, etc, can be discussed amongst admins, the vast bulk of Wikivoyage business should be discussed here on wiki to avoid allegations of a secret cabal. -- A l i c e ✉ 03:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have specific recommendations? This is pretty vague and hard to take any actual action items from.  LtPowers (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My general recommendation is contained in my original sub-section title.
 * Other specific "action items" are at:
 * a) above (I have already made a relevant suggestion here and my suggested policy is at UUTP
 * b) above. This may need construction of a Play the edit not the editor policy page - but I doubt it. Perhaps better enshrined in the admins handbook
 * c) above.
 * The last paragraph above; the relevant parties might be better discussing named individuals here in the open rather than behind the "victim"'s back. Gossip's titillating but can be corrosive when the "victim" can not set the record straight or does not even know that his character/true identity (rather than edits) are being discussed.
 * I'd rather avoid giving specific examples since each one would necessarily impugn the admin/bureaucrat making the dig - sly or otherwise and that's really what we should all try to avoid. -- A l i <font color="#00CCFF">c <font color="#00EEFF">e '<font color="#FF3333">✉ 04:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well as it stands it feels like you're making specific accusations of misbehavior without actually giving us any concrete information by which we could address it. I'm not aware of any significant editor-focused actions of late.  Recent controversy has come almost entirely from trolls looking to either get a rise out of, or disrupt, the community.  LtPowers (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Much of the legal stuff must take place behind "closed doors". I have not seen any discussion of any other individuals. Thus not sure to what you refer? Travel Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of trolling
I realize this hasn't been our policy in the past, but given the persistent trolling from various parties in Southern California (ahem), I move that administrators be given the right to speedily delete such conversations from the Travellers' Pub.

"Don't feed the trolls" is a good and necessary policy, but IMO it doesn't go far enough. Leaving these posts up, even if no one comments on them, may mislead newbies into believing that there actually is a controversy surrounding the WT/WV fork and Wikivoyage's move to the WMF.

I think that removing these exchanges as promptly as possible would reduce any confusion that might result and would serve as an effective deterrent to future trolling. Leaving them visible, on the other hand, serves to hamper our project just as it's getting off the ground, with no upside as far as I can tell.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about 86.45.191.101 22:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems that way. It also seems like the Southern Californian IP is attempting to concern troll, much as I'd like to assume good faith. That said, assuming we ignore the (possible) trolls, how long before we can archive the discussion? That might be a better move: letting people see the discussion, without leading newbies unfamiliar with copyleft and the way Wikimedia works to believe there's any serious legal or ethical issues. —Quintucket (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Per current policy, discussions are archived one month after the most recent contribution to them. Seems like an awfully long time to keep these posts visible - especially given that the original comments were almost certainly made for the explicit purpose of deceiving readers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I know that, I was asking more rhetorically, if we can't move these articles earlier. Actually, given how long this page has gotten, we might want to do that as general policy, but that's another matter. —Quintucket (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm talking about that thread and several others. Please see and  for further examples of destructive trolling. I'm given to understand there were other similar incidents in December that were geolocated to Internet Brands' servers.


 * Peter informed us earlier that a rangeblock was put in place against the IP addresses in the above two instances of trolling, but given the fact that they were done on mobile phones, I wonder how effective that tactic will be if subverting the ban is a simple question of using a different phone.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * User:pb who started one of those really didn't seem to be concern trolling, and if he was, it was a valid concern. (I know I googled to see why Wikivoyage was forced, and the SLAPP-happiness of Internet Brands is part of why I so eagerly jumped in.) Showing the fork more prominently doesn't mean showing Internet Brands in a good light. Since we're trying to be fair, rather than NPOV, it's fair to say that Internet Brands is censorious, SLAPP-happy, entitled, and doesn't have a leg to stand on. Though more politely of course. ;·) —Quintucket (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Those two threads look genuine to me, although it is obvious that Internet Brands joined the conversation. On rational wiki they hide trolling comments in a collapsible section that you have to click on to open. That might be a good idea so that the genuine parts of the conversations can remain. 86.45.191.101 23:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't think that range blocks will work. It is obvious that the user gets a new IP address each time he or she reboots his phone or moves to a different part of Southern California. You could block the user by blocking the entire phone operator, but that would presumably also prevent lots of other people from contributing to the site. Would it be possible to make this page semi-protected so that IP users can't edit, or would that cause too much trouble for other users? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ummm.. Hi. I'm right here! 86.45.191.101 23:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I've probably seen more contributions that are valuable from IP contributors, including on this very thread, than trolling. I think we have to walk a fine line between, on the one hand, welcoming the many new users who are discovering Wikivoyage for the first time, and on the other, making sure they are not misled about what we're all about and how we arrived at the WMF. I really think our best option here is to have admins speedily delete comments that were obviously posted in bad faith. Failing that, I also think 86.45.191.101's idea of hiding trolling comments in collapsible sections would be worth looking into, though I wonder whether any technical changes would need be made to our site to allow that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You just wrap the conversation in a template similar to wikipedia:Template:Wikipedia with that [show / hide] link in the corner and a note saying "hidden to discourage feeding the troll". Don't ask me ho to make it though. 86.45.191.101 23:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You should be able to copy Commons:Template:Collapse top and Commons:Template:Collapse bottom for that. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not think speedily deletes would be a good idea. A general policy of "Don't feed the trolls", plus the occasional very pointed reply showing that they are spouting nonsense, is enough. Early sweeping of threads that smell awful seems fine, though. Pashley (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think that removing these discussion topics is a bad idea. Much better to let them run their course and die from lack of interest. --FloNight (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, I am sincerely trying to understand the counterarguments, but I feel the need to press the issue. I continue to fail to see what purpose is served by allowing these comments to remain visible.


 * A distinction needs to be drawn between, on the one hand, ordinary vandalism or honest mistakes that spring from unfamiliarity with protocol, and on the other hand, Internet Brands' sustained, bad-faith campaign to delegitimize and derail Wikivoyage itself. There's a constructive purpose served by archiving comments that consist of good-faith errors, but this is an entirely different ballgame. While it's doubtful that IB could ever succeed in effecting Wikivoyage's failure, I think the key is IB's malicious intent against Wikivoyage per se. By comparison, even the usual people who add dirty words to Wikipedia articles generally don't want to see Wikipedia itself fail.


 * The campaign of vandalism may or may not dwindle over time, and readers may or may not see IB's concern-trolling for what it is. But why leave it to chance? WMF's strong stance against censorship is admirable, but it should be emphasized that if it's interpreted in an absolutist way vis-à-vis this issue in particular, it's to the detriment of the WMF.


 * The counterarguments I've heard on this thread, if I am interpreting them correctly, amount to "why censor if we can deal with the problem in other ways?". My rebuttal, in its essence, is "why obstruct ourselves with unnecessary intermediate steps if simply deleting the comments has no adverse side effects?" -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I think that you are over reacting. IMO, there is nothing in the comments that are damaging to Wikivoyage and therefore shouldn't be removed. Plus there is really no way to stop them from reoccurring so it is pointless to remove them. If someone is trolling it is best to not remove comments but treat them with calmness. FloNight (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Happily, I think we have been handling the trolls pretty well since the launch. A quick, uninteresting dismissal followed by silence is the best way, although lots of helping hands tend to jump in to keep the troll topics alive :/ Anyway, one benefit of getting bigger is that the ability of one super-bored weirdo to constantly troll all corners of the site is diminished. Collapsing troll comments is an interesting idea, although a complicated one that would deserve discussion at How to handle unwanted edits.


 * It's worth pointing out that there is a still unresolved legal dispute between the WMF and IB directly related to our project. It's best to leave all matters IB to WMF legal.


 * From my own personal perspective, IB isn't part of this project, we've blocked them, and are monitoring carefully to make sure they aren't circumventing said blocks to harass our contributors. I don't think any further dwelling on this is productive—let's focus on our project.  --Peter Talk 03:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If these questions are asked frequently, they should be answered in FAQ, then any time they come up again, the item can be linked to FAQ and deleted after a short period to allow the poster a chance to see the response. Good faith questions are thereby answered adequately, and trolling becomes pointless. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On WP, edits from a blocked user using a sockpupppet or changing IPs are revert-on-sight, even if the content itself is valid. Posting messages to promote a for-profit company would also be revert-on-sight as spam. I see no reason to keep the IB spam and revert the user who posted an ad for some bar in the US to project:travellers' pub. All spam. The WP collapsible box for ending discussion is w:template:hat and w:template:hab (top/bottom, respectively); these likely need code in MediaWiki:Common.js or other sitewide css/js to work. Those are usually used when a talk page for a specific article goes far off-topic. I see no need to keep threads here for a month / three months if they're no longer useful - bug reports where the bug is fixed should be swept within days, not months. K7L (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, although we should be careful to not accidentally revert well-meaning users. Hence the somewhat slower revert process after a CU. Things would be easier, though, if threads like the aforementioned ones were not quickly filled with responses—but what can you do ;) --Peter Talk 19:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Bogus reviews
Bought & paid for, but sometimes busted NY Times story.

I wonder to what extent we need to worry about such things or an Internet Water Army paid to flood forums. Are our current defenses adequate? My guess would be 'yes', but it seems worth asking. Pashley (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw a similar story in (I think?) USA Today. Frankly, I don't think Wikivoyage is a big enough deal to attract large-scale organized spamming operations like that. As for the small-fish spammers that we do encounter from time to time, the size and activity level of our admin team is more than sufficient to easily deal with them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we do have them on the English Wikipedia :/ --Rschen7754 04:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Policy on permanently blocking users
I am wondering what is our policy now on handing out permanent blocks to users? We hand them out like candy now, but this policy page makes a big deal about how we shouldn't. Before the permanent blocks were mostly given to automatic spambots, which makes sense, but now I also see human accounts being blocked permanently after just a few disruptive edits. One that comes to mind is User talk:SheikhTravel who spammed one of our policy pages with a wall of text promoting his company. Not cool, but I'm not sure a permanent block is the answer for such a case. Globe-trotter (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm writing a lengthy response and hope to have it posted shortly. --Rschen7754 03:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm significantly concerned about this entire policy. This may have worked in the Wikitravel days, but now that Wikivoyage is on the WMF servers, you'll find that this site will be hit with a lot more vandalism, spammers, long-term abusers, sockers, pedophiles, etc. Therefore, admins need to be able to deal with these editors the same way as they would be dealt with on other WMF sites. Otherwise, the vandals will vandalize this site as it will become well-known that the English Wikivoyage will not prevent them from doing so.

I'm very concerned by the 2 hour blocks on IPs and user accounts - I doubt that those will be long enough to deal with some of the long-term abusers that we have on WMF sites. On all the other WMF sites I'm a part of (English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, Wikidata) IP vandals get blocked for a minimum of 24 hours and accounts that are created only to vandalize are indefinitely blocked; some wikis give warnings before, some don't. On the English Wikipedia we have all sorts of games such as "sleeper accounts" that are created en masse, make a few good edits to become autoconfirmed, and then a few days later go on a massive vandalism spree on semi-protected pages; I've seen as many as 50 throwaway accounts used in this manner. If there's an attempt to have a ban discussion for every single one of these vandal-only accounts, things will get chaotic pretty quickly. Sometimes there's open proxies, and those should be blocked for at least a year (though we do not indefinitely block IPs) because anyone who is blocked can just use these IPs that are nearly impossible to trace. Sure, the stewards do their own global locking and blocking, but administrators are entrusted with the ability to stop local damage, and are responsible for doing so; the stewards are not allowed to locally block on wikis this size except in dire emergencies or to fulfill checkuser requests, and cannot lock unless they are crosswiki vandals.

You would also be surprised at how much vandalism that WMF sites get on a regular basis. has a month-long backlog of userpages on the English Wikipedia that need to be checked because of all the spam that we get on a regular basis. When I check 10 pages, that usually results in 4 of them having to be deleted, and 3 indefinite blocks. w:en:WP:SPI has tons of long-term abusers who have to be blocked on a regular basis (I'm a trainee clerk there and have been quite surprised at the lengths some will go to in order to disrupt our site). I regularly check Outreach Wikimedia and NYC Wikimedia as spammers hit there too, and they're not always caught in short order. I'm an admin on Wikidata, and we've had to indefinitely block users from there too, even though the mainspace interface is hard to vandalize and we're not really hooked up to anything yet except the Hungarian Wikipedia. Hundreds of editors get indefblocked from the English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, and just about every other WMF site every single day. Snowolf and I have been doing the same here, and some stewards have been doing it as well.

I'm definitely here trying to give advice and help out, while staying out of the way; I know that Wikipedians (especially English Wikipedians) tend to be a bit too forceful whenever they visit other WMF wikis, and I know there's been issues with that on Wikitravel. But now that you're on WMF servers, there's increased popularity, but with that comes a lot more vandalism and abusive editors to deal with; a lot of vandals try to hit all the Wikipedias in all the obscure languages since they think that nobody will discover the vandalism for a long time, and we have to watch those too... I'm concerned that with these two hour blocks and reluctance to indefinitely block you'll be overrun pretty quickly. This site will probably never see the volume of vandalism that en.wikipedia sees, but already you're getting a lot more than Wikitravel did.

I am also quite disturbed by the thread on wikivoyage-l, which I was not aware of until another user pointed it out to me over IRC. If you're going to accuse someone of admin abuse (which is a serious accusation as this can affect someone's standing on their home wiki, such as mine, the English Wikipedia, where I plan to apply for local rights soon), the proper place to do it is on my talk page (where nobody has commented about this yet), or at the appropriate place onwiki, so that the accused can respond properly.

I'll close with an example. User:John Daker 2013 was blocked initially for 1 day. This is not the sort of editor that we want to let edit the English Wikivoyage or any other WMF site, ever. The main account is User:John Daker, who was initially blocked for a whopping 2 hours, and the block length was not adjusted even after the blocking admin was presented with the English Wikipedia reports at w:en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/John Daker and w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Daker/Archive. An English Wikipedia checkuser familiar with the situation approached the stewards on IRC to get the account locked, and the request was granted. I submitted a ban nomination at User ban nominations like your policies says, and got no votes. So when John Daker 2013 showed up today, I indefinitely blocked. Sure, it's breaking local policy, but when local policy prevents you from taking an action to prevent disruption to the site, the local policy should be called into question.

So in summary, if local policy prevents us from taking the actions necessary to protect this site in a timely manner, and the admins and stewards who are actually dealing with the issues in a manner that is globally accepted at virtually every other WMF site are accused of admin abuse, we may as well close down the site and go home, since there is no way that we will be able to keep the vandals, spammers, POV-pushers, etc. away. --Rschen7754 04:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikitravel is actually spammed a lot harder, just go look over there right now :-) But anyway, I agree that with the massive influx of users, 2 hrs might be too little, and 24 hours could be more effective. But the example user I showed is treated very harsh. Because we're a travel guide, and business listings are found all over the site, many business owners think it's okay to spam walls of text promoting their company here. We've had some pretty good contributions from business owners who started out spamming like this, but changed their behavior after we explained to them how the site works. Instead of immediately going for permanent blocks, I think an explanation à la Welcome, business owners would be more appropriate and effective. Of course, if spamming keeps going on, a permanent block could be discussed, but this really wasn't the time for it yet. The user introduced his name and was relatively cooperative. Globe-trotter (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My policy has been that if someone posts obvious spam that's either clearly from a spambot or not even related to travel, I generally ban them indefinitely right away, or for 3 months if they're just an IP. If someone posts promotional pages related to travel but isn't obviously a spambot, I will give them a warning and only if they ignore it and continue to spam will I block them, again indefinitely (I sometimes give such users 3 chances or so). My position is that any user who is posting things that are either completely useless (e.g. gibberish of some kind) or purely promotional and is clearly doing that alone, they are wasting our time and we don't want them here. The other kind of user that I will block indefinitely is a vandal. Someone who vandalizes once may get a warning from me, but if they do it even 3 times or so and it's severe (blanking whole pages or substituting "YOU SUCK DICK!" for a few paragraphs of useful information), I will summarily ban them without warning. I didn't think I was in violation of policy, and if I was, I don't think I agree with the policy. There was one case in which a ban I imposed was reversed to give a business owner another chance. I don't recall what happened with that account afterwards. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Rschen7754 makes a strong case to say the very least. As a sidebar, I am thoroughly fascinated by this John Daker character.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The particular user in question had their appeal declined with "I am hence declining to unblock as you have not addressed the reasons that led to this block." This is a classic example of how an indefinite block is not necessarily an infinite block. If the guy promises not to promote his business, I would be inclined to unblock. The explanation was vague, granted, but we usually rely on templates and an unblock appeal page to convey that message on the English Wikipedia and on Meta. --Rschen7754 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned with being too hasty about blocks - User:SheikhTravel made a mistake, but that shouldn't be cause for a permanent block. Per Rs and norms of other Wikimedia projects I'd be OK with allowing more blocks, but at the same time we also need to assume good faith, so perhaps something like the following:
 * If an account or IP is blocked on other Wikimedia projects then the same block settings can (and should) be applied here.
 * Admins should have fairly wide discretion when blocking obvious vandals and spambots, but the rule should be to err on the side of caution; if there is a possibility that the user is merely confused or experimenting then start with a warning.
 * For travel-related businesses that spam the site, I think our policy of starting with a warning, and then increasing length blocks (starting at one day or less), has worked well - I don't think we want to apply an indefinite block if someone makes a mistake. If things get out of control we can revisit, but in general we've had some success with this approach.
 * It may make sense to do away with the nominations page, and instead move to a process where someone can question a block if there is concern, rather than having to justify every block. That means less work for admins in most cases.
 * Thoughts? -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The w:simple:WP:ONESTRIKE policy may be worth considering - enwp may be the harshest Wikipedia in terms of bans, and there are several users banned from there that remain admins and crats on other WMF sites. Basically, you're allowed to edit here, but if you screw up once here and you have a ban/indef block somewhere else, you get banned here too.
 * Yes, users should be warned before blocking, except for obvious cases where it's a spambot or vandal-only account. As far as the travel spamming, one short-term block followed by an indef is probably okay - if they don't get the message after they were blocked once, I doubt they'll ever get it.
 * I can see a ban nominations page working, but only for the most controversial cases (someone with thousands of edits, for example). --Rschen7754 05:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] Not all users should be warned before being blocked. Someone who repeatedly vandalizes in the space of a few minutes can go screw themselves and should be summarily and indefinitely blocked for the good of the site and in order to save time. Similarly, obvious spambots should be summarily blocked. If you disagree, I may have to reconsider being an admin, because that's how I've been operating, and given the huge increase in traffic lately, I've actually given vandals less rope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I forgot about the vandal-only /spambot / sock exceptions, added now. --Rschen7754 05:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan's proposals seems fine, with one note. I don't think the same approach should be adopted for spamming and for touting, or however else you define it. A user that adds a mention of his business, you should talk to him, etc.. A user that spams the same text in irrelevant places, ignore warnings and keeps spamming it until blocked... Not so much. In one case, the user might be misguided, but he's trying. In the other, not really. I would also note that blocks are not for ever, a user should always feel free to say that he made a mistake and he should be in most cases unblocked conditionally :) Easy come, easy go :) <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 05:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snowolf here, and with the useful distinctions Snowolf is making. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to move away from a policy of discuss blocks first toward one of relying on the discretion of admins. Admins are trusted users, so trust them to use blocks constructively. Blocks can be reviewed, changed, lifted, etc. There are some nasty and determined individuals out there who really have to be dealt with in a tough no-nonsense way. You can't play nice at all with a sockmaster like this, and many others, and determined trolls, vandals, etc. When this place really speeds up, which I hope it will soon, having to discuss blocks or ask about them will be a problem. <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry 05:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think our policy should be to give reasonable benefit of the doubt to users, but if an admin really feels sure a user should be summarily blocked, if we can't trust that admin to be judicious in executing blocks, should s/he really be an admin? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Ikan's wise words. <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 05:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As an overarching policy, yes. --Rschen7754 05:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There does have to be a framework against which an admin judges whether a user should be blocked. We elect admins who we trust to stick to the framework. So I'm OK with Ryan's suggestion to allow admins fairly wide discretion when blocking obvious vandals and spambots—what's the point of keeping an account around that was created for such a sole purpose?

But we do have differing opinions on how to handle unwanted edits from a) business owners/marketers and b) difficult users. For the former, I don't think we've ever had to block them, aside from a temp block to get their attention or halt an edit war. And as a wiki filled with business listings, we've had plenty of experience on this front. I'd prefer we stick to temporary "cooling off" blocks for touts on a marketing spree, and focus more on education and the blacklist—which is the most effective tool against stubbornly defiant business owners.

For ye olde difficult users—human editors who aren't obviously here for the sole purpose of vandalism, but are just bad at interacting with other humans, I'm less certain of what to do/what is being proposed. I agree with the argument that we need to loosen our restrictions on blocks of vandals, when we receive increased attention as a Wikimedia project from "professional" trolls/vandals. But if an editor isn't blatantly here to cause mischief, what should an admin do?

Last, I do think that the one strike policy for users blocked on other well-known WMF wikis makes sense. --Peter Talk 09:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about the business owners - warning and then shortblocking seems fine, and indefblocking in extreme cases. As for difficult users... that's the question that every project faces. Some projects have started an Arbitration Committee, others have figured out different methods such as Requests for Comment, etc. For now, I'd suggest using the ban nominations page for the cases that aren't so clear cut, and other discussion pages as necessary. --Rschen7754 09:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and mirrors our deletion process—speedy the obvious stuff, nominate the harder cases to solicit advice. --Peter Talk 09:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia, due to its visibility and popularity, has had to adopt extremely strict blocking policies. That's understandable. But we should not just adopt their practices, because we are a different project, and have different problems and different needs. Cooling off blocks work; not for everyone and not all the time, but they do work, and they should be tried before resorting to more drastic measures. These wise words still hold true:
 * "User bans are an extreme last resort for us. They are embarrassing, because they are an admission that our community is not strong, patient, and professional enough to deal with unwanted edits using the simple freedom built into the Wiki way. In addition, they are terribly ineffective — a user can change IP address by moving to another computer, or of course just change to use another user account. Lastly, they make an enemy out of a potential friend. Our project is enough of a challenge; we don't need enemies."

Does anyone challenge this advice? -- LtPowers (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I definitely challenge it. You're facing the exact same type of vandals (case in point: John Daker) and are having the same types of problems. There's no messing around with a guy like that, and no 2 hour blocks or he'll triangle every single article. --Rschen7754 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not challenge them, as a ban is an extreme measure indeed. A block is a different thing and it is not extreme, especially when users are given helpful advice as to how to act if they disagree with it. Especially when it the block can just as easily be lifted as it is applied. <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 19:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my interpretation comes from the concept of a "de facto ban" on the English Wikipedia, but regardless: an indefinite block does not mean an infinite block. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Blocks are a tool that should be used when it is necessary to prevent damage to the site. There is nothing wrong with blocking, even indefinitely blocking an account, when it will prevent damaging the site. We indefinitely block hundreds of accounts on the English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, and just about every other WMF site every single day. Making the argument that Wikivoyage is so unique that it is different from all the rest is frivolous. --Rschen7754 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As Rschen says, people like Daker are not "potential friends". There will be plenty more like him that'll come around in future. Banning these people is a must. WV doesn't have to use the exact same blocking policies that en.wiki does, but WV will need stronger policy to respond to increasing growth of the project. The comment about bans being "embarrassing, because they are an admission that our community is not strong, patient, and professional enough to deal with unwanted edits" is wrong, as is the assertion that they're "terribly ineffective". Being soft on vandals, trolls, and especially socks/sockmasters is what's really "terribly ineffective". <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry 19:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (reply to LtPowers) I'm struggling with the "block/ban" differences being discussed, but six years of editing on this project have led me to believe that someone engaging in repeated and malicious vandalism (note: this does not mean adding random letters or "wikis are kewl" to a couple of pages) should be addressed with the "block" tool given to admins, and that admins should have some leeway when choosing to apply this tool. I also think that we should err on the side of caution, and as Peter mentioned treat blocks, particularly long ones, with the same caution we currently use when speedy deleting content.  I disagree strongly with the block that started this discussion as that user appeared to simply be confused and unaware of site policy, and a warning and possibly a short duration block would have been the right way to address the situation - the key to our block policy should be that edits are malicious, or that the user has repeatedly ignored pointers to policy in the case of marketers. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've conditionally unblocked that account, on the grounds that if they start spamming again, they can be reblocked. --Rschen7754 19:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion above at. I recommend reading it for some background on the confusion between blocks and bans (and do take care to note who explained the difference), and on what we find abhorrent about one or the other. LtPowers (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Two things I'd like to stick my head in for: 1) Let's please not talk about blocks and bans as being different unless someone is willing to explain exactly how they differ ;) 2) I agree that temp blocks generally work, and should be tried before an indefinite block in most cases. 3) Just because other WMF sites handle/have handled the use of blocks differently doesn't mean that our way is/was wrong. Consider our approach an instructive/constructive experiment with soft security.
 * There are cases in which a harder line would have worked better, but in most cases I feel pretty confident that our approach was a good one. Given that we now are working in close coordination with anti-vandal efforts with a collection of sites with far harsher block policies, I do think we should move in that direction to avoid conflicts with interwiki efforts, but we should be careful to preserve the best aspects of our traditional handling of blocks. --Peter Talk 21:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So many interleaving ideas here. On the mailing list I've pointed out the case of User:SheikhTravel. This user was blocked without editing a guide. An appeals policy was imported from some other wiki, and used to effectively ban. They were never welcomed as a business owner, and the limits of the edits they were allowed to make were never given to them. Of course, with business owners there is a good chance their edits will be skewed, however we have a long term policy of allowing them for the good edits that sometimes do arise. I'm strongly against more discretion for admins, and in favour of strong guidelines. Admins have always tried to be helpers here, not arbiters or judges. I'd hate to see that divide open further. I think the exponentially increasing block length policy is a great strength. It allows quick redemption for someone who makes a stupid test edit, but may continue to contribute. The exponential nature quickly meets the challenge of a determined vandal/spammer --Inas (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not if the vandal has an established bad crosswiki record, in which case the exponential nature quickly wastes our time. --Rschen7754 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly happy to look differently on a user/ip that has already been vandalising other wikis to start higher up the exponential scale, and not on a 2-hour block.  I think that is a specific case, and my other points still stand.  --Inas (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have to start a ban nomination for every single disruptive user that needs an indefinite ban, the ban nominations page will be very quickly overrun, and while the discussions are going on, the user will still be free to disrupt. That's the problem with using the ban nominations page for everything. There are some very disruptive trolls who will try to return even after years of being blocked (w:en:User:Mistress Selina Kyle for one example, who was blocked indefinitely until the WMF servers screwed up and unblocked her). --Rschen7754 03:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We're yet to see if that occurs here, and I don't think we need to frame policy around this exceptional case. The policy page isn't going anywhere, and changing it if the conditions require doesn't take long.  99% of vandals are here for a short time.
 * I'm more than happy to look at some of the compromises being thrown around. I think 24 + 7 hours is reasonable from my perspective instead of 2-hours for an initial vandal block, and I don't have much problem with this increasing to a week, and then 3-months for subsequent abuse without the need for a user ban vote.  I'm happy to consider taking into account cross-wiki abuse when determining blocks.
 * I think we need to distinguish pure vandalism from business owner spamming and similar. I think these can be handled quite differently in most cases.  Vested interests are discouraged on WP, but encouraged here.  We need a different approach.
 * If the user is actively pursuing, I'm happy for them to be blocked while the issue is discussed on user bans.
 * I really, really don't like this "appeal to another admin to revoke a block". It isn't what the role of admins on the site has traditionally been, and I don't see it as required. --Inas (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't an exception; I can name several users who returned after blocks of more than a year and who stirred up trouble once again. Admins need the ability to indefinitely block users without a ban nomination in uncontroversial cases. If they don't have that sort of judgement, they shouldn't be admins in the first place. That's how virtually every other WMF site works, and that process works; I see no reason why it can't work here. --Rschen7754 04:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, in the above paragraph I'm talking about malicious spammers, vandals, trolls, pedophiles. etc. Not business owners unless other approaches are unsuccessful. --Rschen7754 04:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you as a matter of policy. To Inas' point, I don't mind being overridden occasionally. For example, I mistakenly deleted the Rock article and it was properly overridden. None of us is perfect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(re-indent) This discussion seems to be meandering around - would it make sense to separate it into a few different proposals? I think the following are the items being discussed:


 * 1) What to do with obvious vandals (people who are obviously here with malicious intent, such as those who add racial slurs to articles).
 * 2) What to do with users who may be confused.  Example: someone who adds "Wikivoyage sucks" or "Does this work" to a couple of pages.
 * 3) What to do with business editors who repeatedly ignore policy.
 * 4) Should we still use a nominations page?
 * 5) Do we apply the block length for users blocked on other Wikimedia sites, considering that a one-strike policy might be useful?

Does that above sum up what's being discussed? If so, it may be easier to split this discussion into five sub-sections and try to come to a consensus on individual proposals. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense; I think the above discussion is getting confusing. We'll need to take into account that IP blocking isn't exactly the same as blocking an account, since there are dynamic IPs. --Rschen7754 05:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We should start individual subsections for these.
 * I think I can write the business editors right off the top of my head though: Undo additions by business promoters that violate Don't tout. If they protest, explain the policy. If they defy the policy, undo, and add their website to the blacklist. If they start an edit war, use temp blocks, beginning with a very short time period to get their attention, but progressively increasing the length if repeated blocks are necessary.
 * We can handle spambots with the old method: indef block spambot-created accounts, block spambot ips for 1 month, then 3, then 6, then 9, etc. --Peter Talk 05:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Open to further discussion, but that sounds good. Spambot-created accounts are also grounds for an immediate CU, be it by local CUs or the stewards, and can be reported to the stewards for locking (though a local block would be quicker to stop damage, and steward actions are outside the scope of what we're discussing). --Rschen7754 05:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added sub-sections below for the various items being discussed. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ban nominations
Current policy for any block longer than a day (with some exceptions) is that it should be nominated - see How_to_handle_unwanted_edits. This policy adds significant overhead compared to other Wikimedia projects, and has in fact been applied loosely here for some time. There seems to be some agreement that we should do away with the nominations page for most cases and only require a nomination when someone disagrees with a block, similar to what is done with Votes for undeletion. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, or some could preemptively start a discussion when they know a block will be very controversial (someone with thousands of edits, for example, who has shown that they cannot contribute productively). However, a ban in these cases is a last resort. --Rschen7754 05:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is one where I disagree. Rather than set the bar at "only if someone disagrees" (how would one know about the block if it's not listed here?) or "only if they know it will be very controversial", I'd set it at "if there's any chance it would be controversial".  The level of vandalism around here has dropped precipitously since the banners went off the sister sites, so I'm wary of changing too much until we see where the levels set up long-term.  We have long had a provision allowing immediate blocks when necessary, but the block must be able to be reviewed by the community.  LtPowers (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the truth is that anyone can disagree with anything if they wanted to. Perhaps a better question would be, can someone make a reasonable objection to your block based on policy? --Rschen7754 05:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What about "If there is any doubt, block them for a day then start a discussion about a longer block."? Pashley (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How long do ban discussions usually last? --Rschen7754 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe policy calls for three days. LtPowers (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not block them for 3 days then? --Rschen7754 03:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I think the user should stay blocked for the duration of the discussion. If it's clear that the discussion won't succeed in banning the user, I would support ending the discussion and unblocking the user early. --Rschen7754 06:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Obvious vandals
Obvious vandals are those who are clearly here to edit maliciously, such as those who add racial slurs to articles or blank numerous articles and add obscenities. While we've been fairly lenient with this type of user in the past, IMHO an immediate and indefinite block on these types of users is fine as their goal is to create trouble, but there should be no doubt that the user is editing maliciously. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No issues. Mainly to be consistent with other projects, and also to prevent further damage as trolls hit WMF sites on a regular basis. --Rschen7754 05:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems like a no-brainer to me. The only question is what to do with the underlying IP? --Peter Talk 06:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's a user account that gets indefinitely blocked, it depends on how serious the disruption is to justify if a CU should be run. Usually the autoblocker is good enough to stop new accounts from being created, but not always. If it's an IP, things get messy. There, I would support an exponential system, as the owner of an IP address can change, and some IPs are dynamic. Rangeblocks should be considered if there's a vandal on a dynamic IP, but should be used with caution as innocent users can get blocked; you can consult a CU to see if there are innocent users editing there. I think open proxies should be blocked on sight for a year, as anyone using an open proxy is up to no good (with the exception of Tor for editors in China, where we usually have to get an IPblockexempt flag)... yeah, in short, IP blocking is messy. --Rschen7754 06:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm really asking about is what to do with the underlying IP when blocking an account like this. Should you tick "Prevent account creation" or "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from?" I'd be worried about snaring other people on a dynamic IP. That's not a problem we have with our current framework of temporary blocks of progressively longer times. --Peter Talk 06:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Autoblocks only last 24 hours, if I'm not mistaken. --Rschen7754 06:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then I can't see any reason not to block immediately and indefinitely accounts that are here clearly for vandalism and nothing else. --Peter Talk 06:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is in defining what is "clearly" vandalism. LtPowers (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, stuff that should definitely be included would be accounts inserting "User X is a NAZI!!!!!!" on userpages and usernames to that effect. Or an account like User:I AMGOING TO VANDALIZE!!!!! Or an account that inserts vandalism at very high speed. Basically, if it's clear what their motives are from the beginning and we need to block immediately to protect the site. --Rschen7754 20:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To me the best test of a user account that is here to vandalise is if they have a short blocked with that reason, and then when their block expires they return and do the same thing. But I agree with User:Rschen7754 that high speed and a clear wiki knowledge combined with disruptive edits are a pretty clear indication too, and cross-wiki behaviour is a reason to not give a second chance as well.  --Inas (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is one where we can trust admins a bit to recognize the blatantly obvious ones. Accounts like the one currently nominated for a block, or stuff like these. People inserting ethnic slurs into random articles, attempting mass move vandalism, creating accounts with very offensive names, declaring that they're taking over the site, etc. If there is a concern that an admin is setting too low a bar for "obvious," we can just bring that up if it comes up, and plan to do so and to receive such concerns cordially ;)  --Peter Talk 22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to put it another way, if the user in question knows very well what they are doing and it's clear that they are trying to cause damage to the site, that's obvious vandalism. --Rschen7754 07:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've updated the policy page with the apparent consensus from the above discussion. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandals
In cases where it isn't clear if a user is editing maliciously, existing policy is that we just revert the user and add a warning to the user's talk page, and if the problem edits continue then blocks of increasing length can be applied. I'm happy with this policy as-is, although if it becomes clear that the user is editing maliciously then I'd be in favor of applying the "malicious vandal" rules. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No issues, though it probably should be worded as "editor tests" or something like that to make it more clear. --Rschen7754 05:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Business promoter
"Business promoter" refers to a user who adds information that violates Don't tout to one or more articles. Per Peter:


 * Undo additions by business promoters that violate Don't tout. If they protest, explain the policy. If they defy the policy, undo, and add their website to the blacklist. If they start an edit war, use temp blocks, beginning with a very short time period to get their attention, but progressively increasing the length if repeated blocks are necessary.

That sounds good to me. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No issues with this, as I've said above. --Rschen7754 05:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Spambots
Per Peter:


 * indef block spambot-created accounts, block spambot ips for 1 month, then 3, then 6, then 9, etc.

Per Rs:


 * Spambot-created accounts are also grounds for an immediate CU, be it by local CUs or the stewards, and can be reported to the stewards for locking (though a local block would be quicker to stop damage, and steward actions are outside the scope of what we're discussing)

-- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Users blocked/banned on other WMF sites
Per Rs, give users who are blocked on other sites one strike and then the same block settings from other projects may be applied. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Within reason, perhaps. Someone who got himself blocked on some tiny outpost of the WMF world might have reformed but not bothered to apply for an unblock there; or a language barrier could have resulted in a misunderstanding-related block.  Some of these cases would no doubt be non-controversial, but others are not so clear-cut.  LtPowers (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The one-strike policy means they have to get into trouble here for doing the same thing. There are plenty of editors banned from the English Wikipedia who are admins on Commons or other WMF sites, for example. --Rschen7754 20:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I can think of one in particular I'd have no problem applying the one-strike rule to. But that's an obvious case; I'm just a little wary of the non-obvious ones.  LtPowers (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I the "obvious case" ? -- <font color="#0000DD">A <font color="#0066FF">l <font color="#0099FF">i <font color="#00CCFF">c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you an admin on another WMF wiki? LtPowers (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Thank you for the clarification and sorry for being abstruse. -- <font color="#0000DD">A <font color="#0066FF">l <font color="#0099FF">i <font color="#00CCFF">c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 20:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In agreement with LtPowers—these should still get a ban nomination, unless the trouble is really blatant vandalism or real-world threats. --Peter Talk 22:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What might be useful is a distinction between "he vandalized everything in sight" and "he just was a crummy editor who didn't get it so we banned him." --Rschen7754 23:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the editor I obliquely referred to above isn't a vandal, just a poison and a cancer upon every Wiki community he touches. LtPowers (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this obviously covers more than vandalism. The fundamental questions to be asking are - why was the editor banned? did they continue what they did to get banned here? does the behavior violate local policy too? --Rschen7754 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some agreement that if a user is blocked for malicious editing on other Wikimedia sites that the same block can be applied here, so as a test case I've blocked Special:Contributions/68.84.243.130 for six months. Is this acceptable?  And if so, is it OK to update the site policy to reflect the new guidelines? -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 18:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes to both, though he is blocked on many sites besides the English Wikipedia - . One of his edits was suppressed/oversighted by a steward. --Rschen7754 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've updated the policy page with the apparent consensus from the above discussion. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite
As I expected, there is a lot more agreement than disagreement here when we got down to specifics. This article will need a substantial rewrite, though, to bring it in line with Wikivoyage 2013. I'd like to give it a shot, organizing it strictly by category of edits (graffiti, vandalism, trolling, advertising, spamming, etc.). I feel pretty confident that everyone will be OK with it. But first, is there anything else people wanted to say/contest? --Peter Talk 06:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've lost track of what I support and what I oppose. It would be good to have a summary, but whether that takes the form of a brief overview here, or of a revision to the policy page, I don't know.  LtPowers (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've updated the policy page to note that users blocked on other WMF projects for vandalism may be blocked here (with the same settings) after a first strike, and that vandals who make malicious edits may be blocked without a nomination - hopefully that captures what seems to be consensus above. The overall policy page could still use significant cleanup, and some of the other discussions from above should be integrated into current policy, but these two items should at least bring us closer to other WMF projects in terms of how we handle fairly obvious vandals. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia & "incompatible license"
I notice the following, under Copyright violations
 * Another clue is that text copied from Wikipedia (which uses an incompatible license) often has lots of Wiki links everywhere to subjects not usually found in a travel guide .

The link of course is to the policy on Copyleft, which notes that Wikipedia is compatible (both sites use CC-by-SA licenses). So is this a typo, and if not, why are we warning against copying from WP, rather than reminding people to give proper attribution when copying from WP? —Quintucket (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikivoyage is a travel guide. While there is some overlap, generally it's not the best idea to copy from Wikipedia, even with the proper attribution. --Rschen7754 10:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that, but I'm asking why it comes under "Copyright violations," and uses the words "incompatible license." —Quintucket (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just an artifact from the days when Wikipedia was GPL and we were CC. I'll change it. --Peter Talk 18:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Archiving
This page is getting long and much of it is old discussion from WT. I'd say that material should be archived, but have not done it because I do not know what naming convention might apply. Pashley (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd wait. The discussions above are especially germane to the current discussion. --Peter Talk 21:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if they're somewhat relevant, I'm strongly in favor of moving the pre-fork discussions without any post-fork (possibly even post-launch) contributions to an archive. While they're certainly interesting, they're very old, and the composition of the user base automatically changed drastically (leaving a lot of casual Wikitravelers, and adding a lot of casual Wikimedians), meaning that it makes sense to start new topics if we're going to revisit an issue post-fork. —Quintucket (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes the older discussions more important, not less. LtPowers (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Draft suppression policy
The policies talk page suggested that it needed a policy already in place to discuss, and this pub suggests if I have something helpful, so to the pub I go. I've drafted a skeleton suppression policy for Wikivoyage in my userspace, the community will need it in fairly short order. Until something is adapted locally all manners for privacy violations will be handled by Stewards. Trusted users, but this is a seasoned community and I figure you'd want to get this ball rolling sooner rather than later. Let me know if I can help with this process further. If it's suitable for the policy page discussion, feel free to move it. Keegan (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me - this isn't a feature we've needed or used before, so I'm happy to defer to those who know best. I assume that oversight is something that stewards handle in extreme cases? -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 07:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stewards or local users who are elected, typically. In extreme cases, WMF staff may step in with suppression (in the case of unacceptable content or legal issues).  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A local suppression policy is not needed. Until such a time as Wikivoyage chooses to have oversighters, the work will be carried out by stewards based on the global oversight policy, which is comprehensive enough as it is. A wiki with no oversighters has no need for an oversight policy... <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 13:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, Snowolf, I'm simply suggesting the framework for local implementation in the future, should the project choose to use this extension. I'm not calling for elections or demanding change.  It's just a draft in my userspace.  No need for the heavy hand, sir.  As a steward you can relax, I'm not stealing your job from you.  Keegan (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There actually has been content oversighted already from enwikivoyage. --Rschen7754 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oversight
I seem to have oversight powers. I'm not sure why, or which groups have them currently. To check if you have them, look for a show/hide link in the headers of diff pages (right by the edit summary).

Is there ever a case where we should use this? Or should we blanket ban its local use/restrict its use to stewards (to avoid conflicts with meta policies)? --Peter Talk 05:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that revision delete and oversight (suppression) are two different things. Do all admins here have rev delete? I'm inclined to say that we shouldn't use it. --Peter Talk 05:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Stewards have used oversight here in a few cases - see User talk:Wrh2. Since this functionality should only really be needed in specific cases that are common to all Wikimedia projects (hiding personal information, updates due to legal issues, etc) I think we should leave suppression/oversight to the stewards. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm proposing we need to use this here, because libel, etc, aren't that common on a travel wiki. I'm just questioning the thinking behind why we would let people less familiar with our wiki do admin work here in preference to the local admins?  --Inas (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't used the feature yet, but discovered it and have been waiting for the change to use it. If I'm not mistaken, RevDelete can hide elements of an edit (edit summary, user/IP address, and the new text) from view, but does not remove the changes made to a page. Let's say a user adds a bunch of copyrighted content on a page. While the edit can be undone, the copyrighted content would still remain on our site (in that particular revision), which violates the copyright owner's rights (still hosted/viewable).
 * If RevDelete was used on the edit which added the copyvio material, then the edit would not show up in the edit history, but the material would still be on the page. In order to hide the material from public view altogether, I would have to undo the edits that added the copyrighted material and then use RevDelete to hide both the edits that had added the material AND my edit reverting. However, the edits would be still be retained on the servers and anyone else with RevDelete ability could come along and view and/or change the visibility of those edits.
 * Oversight would actually delete the material permanently. It seems this distinction is to prevent abuse, where other sysops can check what has been done, with a very limited few given the incredible power of being able to permanently delete the material. Oversight ability is much more important on WP, where there is a lot of controversial material and simply because of the massive traffic/notoriety it has. Oversight on WV is less important. However, it may be worth having 1-2 editors with the capability. Most issues would be copyright violations, as we don't really have much of an issue with threats, personally-identifiable info, or degrading/offensive material. If no one has been deleting copyright violations from public view (not simply undoing them, but hiding with RevDelete capability), then we might be in the wrong legally-speaking. I'll try to look on Meta/WP for relevant info to this topic. AHeneen (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Obtaining oversight access is similar to checkuser...since we don't have an ArbCom, oversighters must be 18, provide ID to WMF, advertise their request publicly, and be approved by at least 25 users. There can't be just one oversighter...either none or at least 2. After reading more, it seems like RevDel is ok to handle copyvios (no oversight necessary) and that oversight is mostly for personally-identifiable info and defamatory material. While defamatory material may be apparent regardless of which wiki one is using, I'm inclined to say that we could use a couple oversighters. A private request would have to be made to a Steward for each incident needing oversight. See: m:Oversight policy. AHeneen (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Inas - my thinking as to "why we would let people less familiar with our wiki" handle this functionality is that any violation that would require a revision to be hidden is likely a violation of a Wikimedia policy rather than a Wikivoyage policy, so I'd suggest we let the people most familiar with rules around when a revision should legally be suppressed deal with these things. In eight years we've never needed to use this capability (since we didn't have it available), so instances where it is needed should be rare.  I personally hate not being able to see what behavior led to a user being blocked, or what change someone made to my talk page that warranted a revert, so the less this functionality has to be used the better, in my opinion. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 16:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we overestimate the resistance of the stewards to using these tools. I certainly see the capacity to exercise these functions locally resulting in greater local accountability, and quite likely less use. --Inas (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically there's three main uses that I could think of for revision deletion: copyvios, disruptive material, and as a stopgap measure while waiting for an oversighter/steward to respond. By disruptive material I include links to malicious sites, but moreover malicious js/css. The MediaWiki software is not foolproof, and it is possible to inject malicious code that is then run by the browser and obscures the whole page or does something unwanted. (The GNAA has done it on the English Wikipedia). This would prevent some passer-by from clicking on the link or diff. As far as oversight goes, AHeneen pretty much said it above; oversight has less overhead than CU - the main thing would be setting up a way to submit requests privately where they can be acted on quickly. Some projects use OTRS, and some use a lists.wikimedia.org private list. (I'm actually supposed to be on wikibreak, so much for that...) --Rschen7754 01:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Revdel can also be used to merge and split page histories. LtPowers (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not what revdel should be used for, as that violates our licensing agreement. --Rschen7754 20:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How so? Maybe I'm mistaking it for something else.  I do splits on Commons all the time.  LtPowers (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We have to properly attribute edits as much as possible. Revdel is only used for cases where something actually needs to be removed from the history. --Rschen7754 23:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't it also for splitting and merging? i.e., delete a page, selectively restore revisions, move the page, selectively restore the remaining revisions?  Everything remains correctly attributed.  commons:COM:SPLIT explicitly calls for that exact procedure.  LtPowers (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's selective deletion and restoration; that has nothing to do with revdel. Revdel hides the content of revisions, but any editor can tell that something was hidden. --Rschen7754 18:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I daresay RevDel is a bit misleadingly named, then. I'm sure I'm not the only admin who's been confused by the terminology.  I apologize for the confusion.  LtPowers (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've created a chart describing how oversight is used on all wikis that have local oversighters, if you're interested. See m:User:Rschen7754/OS reference. --Rschen7754 08:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Spambots
It would be greatly appreciated if spambots were reported at SRG so that the accounts could be locked globally and so that a CU could be done to block the underlying IP addresses - I think this would help cut down on the number of spambots that keep hitting en.wikivoyage. --Rschen7754 22:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you update How to handle unwanted edits with this info so it is documented? Most of us who are new to Wikimedia are relatively unaware of these sorts of processes, so it would be great to get them incorporated into our existing policies. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 23:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, though it was changed to spambots. --Rschen7754 23:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any way that this reporting could be automated, such that any time a user is blocked as a spambot, a report is automatically generated to that place? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think that the automated tool that did this is down, and it only worked if the account was blocked on two wikis or more. Stewards can be flagged down on IRC as well, or you could save the account names until the end of the day and make one big post then. --Rschen7754 23:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rschen. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 00:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Revise policy on dealing with repeated unwanted edits
(Swept in from the pub to be continued here) &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think much of the problem in this case is that our policy is not prepared to deal with persistent problem users who get off on trying to blur the line between useful contributions and unacceptable behavior. What I think we need is to revisit our policy regarding trollish/uncooperative/rude editors. One option would be a system of standardized, documented warnings in a sort of three-strikes-you're-out arrangement:
 * Not to be used unless the user already has an established pattern of problematic behavior with regard to the offenses below and has already been made aware previously that the behavior is unacceptable (i.e. we don't use this system to bite the newbies, anonymous vandalism can still be taken care of in the usual way, etc.)
 * Offenses include:
 * foul language
 * insults/ad hominem attacks/disparaging remarks, whether of a personal or categorical nature (i.e. "my xyz proposal is being held up by disingenuous idiots who secretly hate this website" etc.)
 * repeatedly making edits you are aware go against community consensus and/or combining such unwanted edits with legitimate ones so as to accuse patrollers/admins of reverting valid contributions
 * repeated harrassment of others for making edits which do conform with community consensus
 * encouraging others to ignore or act against established policies/consensus
 * repeated edit warring, especially where consensus/policy is clearly against you
 * repeated spamming, touting, or insertion of false information
 * using multiple accounts to "sway" consensus
 * etc.
 * Warnings are given clearly using a red template, which must cite:
 * what the offending behavior was, with link(s) to relevant edit(s)
 * a link to previous warning(s)/evidence the user has previously been made aware the behavior is unacceptable
 * links to relevant policy pages, if any
 * whether it is a first, second warning, etc.
 * what consequence accompanies the warning
 * what consequences of repeat behavior in the future will be
 * link to the policy instituting this warning system, including the list of offenses above and the list of consequences below
 * date and admin issuing
 * Warnings given are recorded on a log page and grouped by user, with a permanent link to where each warning was given, and any additional notes, links to discussions relevant to the user's problematic behavior, links to previous blocks of the user on other wikis, so other admins can get an idea about the user's problem history
 * We work out a standard progression of consequences to follow. This is something we would need to negotiate, but just an example:
 * first warning - three day block (remember they have already been unofficially warned and possibly blocked for shorter periods up to a day prior to this)
 * second warning - two week block
 * third warning - one month block
 * subsequent warning - permanent block

I think this system gives the user many chances to correct their behavior, and if we had had something like this in place before, I think the current problems would not be happening, and certain users would either have shaped up or been shipped out by now. If a user is so bent on continuing one of the offensive behaviors that they keep on doing it all the way through the course and end up permanently blocked, I'd say there was little hope of them ever becoming a cooperative, useful contributor and the community is better off without them anyway. Of course, this is just one possibility. We could discuss others (demerit system with different point values for different offenses, graduated criteria system, etc.), but I think the above is pretty simple and straightforward and would work. Texugo (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Texugo, in practice, who would be the one to issue the warning. Any user? An admin? Or at least two users? Two admins? Danapit (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I would say one admin would suffice (normal users cannot effect blocks). And because it isn't for first-time offenders and the warning would include so much linked documentation of the exact nature and instance of the offense and documented evidence of the user's prior knowledge that the behavior is to be avoided, I think just one admin is enough. Texugo (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea and would be supportive. However, I think Wikipedia already has something like this, so if we could base our implementation on theirs we would both benefit from their experience with this type of issue and be implementing something that will be consistent with other WMF projects. Does anyone know more about what they do, and could you link to a relevant policy page? -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 14:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good thinking Ryan. I don't know much about their process though. Texugo (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any WP process that precisely corresponds with this. The en.WP community is enormous, and so there are multiple routes that can be taken to deal with problematic users.  Persistent vandals just get blocked, perhaps after repeated appearances at w:WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism.  Good-faith users whose behavior repeatedly violates community norms usually end up at w:WP:Arbitration committee.  Users who have simply exhausted the communities patience can be blocked (a technical measure) by any admin, and can be considered banned (a societal measure) if no one cares enough to reverse the block, or if the block is confirmed after discussion at w:WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Perhaps, though, Ryan is thinking of the system of w:WP:Template messages/User talk namespace, which are used in an escalating fashion to make sure users know they're on the way to being blocked.
 * All of these measures are, in my opinion, more complicated than we need. Our community is different, and we require different techniques than other communities.  I think Texugo's proposal is outstanding and I would like to see it implemented.  We would have to address, however, the perception that admins may be unfairly criticized for taking these actions, as well as provide a way to appeal egregious abuses of the process.
 * -- LtPowers (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would hope the strenuous documentation requirements would go a little way toward preventing unfair criticism for these actions. If more is needed, perhaps there should be a caveat that "no two consecutive warnings can be issued to a given user by the same admin", or if we want to be really hardcore, "no two warnings can be issued to a given user by the same admin". I certainly don't foresee any instance where 3 admins will be rightfully accused of "egregriously abusing" the process.
 * And you're right, we'd probably need a formal appeal process for removing warning from the user's "record", which would presumably invite wider commentary on the issue. Also someone who once received a warning but has long since reformed and turned useful may want to petition that their "record" be wiped clean. Texugo (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I like Tuxego's proposal. I've been keen to avoid any discussions with this recent batch of trouble users, just because I've seen how never-ending, stressful, and completely fruitless those discussions keep turning out. This proposed policy would give administrators a little more breathing room to say "hey, cut it out."
 * As for an appeals process, one idea off the top of my head is that the template could include a link to a meta-wiki page (I'm assuming a ban on Wikivoyage doesn't translate to a ban on the meta-wiki) where a user can appeal his/her ban (with a note that they'd better be ready to make a pretty compelling case that the administrator in question has abused the policy in banning them). Then it can be reviewed by other WV administrators for consideration. I grant that this might be unnecessarily complicated, though... does anyone know of a simpler process used elsewhere? PerryPlanet (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, on second thought, I'm thinking my idea goes against the spirit of Texugo's proposal. The idea should be to come up with a good system for dealing with trouble users, and coming up with an appeals page, and thus yet another venue for them to harangue admins, seems counter-productive. Given that Texugo's proposal includes a log page and specifications that this will only be used when there's an established pattern of problematic behavior (with citing examples of such), I think there's enough room for admin oversight in there to prevent egregious abuses of power. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a lot that works on the English Wikipedia... and a lot that doesn't. Out at Wikidata we started with no policies at all, and while a lot of English Wikipedia norms were adopted, we purposefully did not use a lot of them, and we are much more strict on civility and collaborative behavior than most other projects. --Rschen7754 06:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should also remove the right that every single admin has to veto a block that is supported by the rest of the community. How to handle unwanted edits says, "If the proposed ban is supported by two administrators, and there are no objections from other administrators, after 3 days the ban will go into effect." This gives too much power to admins because each and every single one can veto a proposal supported by the entire rest of the community. Nurg (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood the paragraph that quote came from. The text on the project page has now been clarified. Nurg (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Rschen7754 19:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that point too. It should probably be revised in combination with one of the suggested caveats above about not all warnings coming from the same admin. Texugo (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Texugo's proposal is excellent. In terms of appeals, I don't think we want to allow unlimited appeals which would waste a lot of time in useless discussion. Otherwise, the details can be discussed. Would Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits be the best place to hash out the details, or would Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations be better? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need a strong consensus to establish a policy. But once the policy is established, we don't need to build another consensus every time a policy is broken.
 * I like the systems of warnings and escalations proposed.   I'd like to see a few circuit-breakers in there, just to make sure that no admins take this stuff on too personally.  Possibly after each warning, that admin drop out of the issue.  So each of the warnings should come from a different person?
 * I'd also like there to be no consequence of the first warning. i.e no block period.  --Inas (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea of having all or at least consecutive warnings come from different admins has already been floated further above as well. Is that something everyone can get behind? I would unconditionally support saying consecutive warnings must be by different admins, and provisionally support making the three warnings from three different admins, but... With regard to your second suggestion, Inas, are you suggesting adding an addition warning level before the first one above, for a total of four? If we did do that and have four, I would definitely not like to make it where it has to be four different admins - that seems like a bit much. On the other hand, I wonder whether adding an additional non-block level is necessary, given that the user may have already received shorter blocks prior to the initiation of this process, and given that for the process to be started, it's a prerequisite that the user has already intentionally disregarded previous unofficial warnings and continued with the offending behavior. So I thought it not necessary. But perhaps we could institute an optional zero-level warning without a block, for use in cases where the user has yet to receive any block. What do others think?
 * I am very happy to see that the general proposal has pretty wide support. Even if there are some details to work out, I think we are doing ourselves a great service and making an important step to getting back on track and learning from our mistakes. Texugo (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with consecutive warning from different people. I think if we are having a process the first warning in the process should be without sanction, but I see no reason why that should necessarily be from an admin (since a block isn't required).  --Inas (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with requiring each warning/block to be from a different admin. If there are are not four admins who agree on the necessity for the blocks, they probably are not necessary. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The primary way that poor quality editors are dealt with on WP is via w:WP:AN. The community first tries to deal with the editor in question. Warnings are placed on their talk page for different issues. Once a sufficient number of problems are collected these difs are presented on WP:AN. The community discusses the issue. A few proposals are put forwards. The community weighs in with supports and opposes. A non involved admin closes the discussion based on their summary of the positions presented and hands out the verdict whatever it maybe. The process is sometimes a little messy and drawn out. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think "zero-level warning without a block" should be added, so that the user realizes that this is getting really serious and any further offense will make them blocked. This first warning could be issued by any user, the following levels with blocks by admins, obviously (different admin for each level?). Danapit (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there is nothing more likely to prove that things are getting serious than a block. There is nothing to stop any user from issuing an unofficial warning anyway. A warning from an arbitrary user without a block means very little beyond face value - pointing out that the warned person has, in the opinion of the warner, broken a rule in some way. A warning from an admin at the very least implies that the person issuing the warning has some trust from the community, and probably knows the rules and whether they have in fact, been broken. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the concept. I like the idea of different admins required for the notices/blocks. I would also like to see all the discussion, diffs quoted, actions taken etc for a given user consolidated in a single place, linked to the user, so that it is easier for previously uninvolved users to catch up on the saga, and some automatic notification for admins that there is a problem at the time of the each block. I also think that some of our policies might be clarified, so it is easier to define some offences. Discussing these problems on user talk pages and off wiki makes it very difficult to keep track. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How would we establish an established pattern of problematic behavior? This may be a detail, but it is one we should consider. Something involving a history of informal warnings by more than one person, with diffs cited? A formal notification by the complainant on a notification page? A well defined process may take longer to set up, but afterwards if will make the process work. Everyone should be able to read and understand the procedures, and then follow them. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Time to move to an expedition? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the concept of a stepped approach. I would support an official warning step, which might include a request to reduce edit rate (e.g. no more than 10 edits a day) to try to force more thought into edits - a company I used to work for had a disciplinary policy that started with a verbal warning, but a verbal warning was backed up with a written memo so that there was a record of it. We should also consider data protection and Biography of Living People concerns: any pages used for this process should be hidden from search engines and maybe only viewable by logged in editors - I don't think we want to harm the career prospects of somebody who is banned when still at school. AlasdairW (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I like Texugo's proposal and also agree with Nurg about removing the ability of a single admin to block a ban supported by the community. Just to clarify though -- would this proposal mean that there wouldn't be user ban nominations as they exist today? (i.e., once a pattern of problematic behaviour is established, a single admin could decide at each of the warning levels whether a further block is needed)
 * I think we should also update some of the text on How to handle unwanted edits. Reading through our guidelines on repeat offenses it gives the impression that it doesn't take much time to deal with persistent editors making unwanted edits so we should just patiently revert. Clearly this isn't the case, so less lenient and more realistic wording would be helpful. -Shaundd (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think w:Wikipedia:Disruptive editing gets to the heart of what we're trying to deal with right now. Would it make sense to draft a comparable Wikivoyage document that perhaps also includes elements of w:Wikipedia:Civility?  This could easily be combined with Texugo's proposal and would give us some agreed-upon standards for identifying problematic editing behavior. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 17:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with handling sock accounts in this way - by the time we hit the blocking phase, there could be dozens of accounts. If we want to treat the master account this way, that's fine, but I think the socks should be blocked indefinitely if they are being used abusively. --Rschen7754 18:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you think the current sock policy is insufficient for this? --Inas (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the socking policy should be reevaluated separately from this - perhaps I've seen too many abusers from English Wikipedia though. If this wiki ever has local CUs, not having a firm socking policy means that CUs cannot actually do anything in most cases; even as it is, almost nothing can be done under policy unless the offender happens to come from another wiki, in which case the reciprocal blocks thing applies. --Rschen7754 07:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with you that sock policy should be separate. Especially since it takes a good deal of time and effort to obtain inconvtrovertible evidence for it, and the puppetmaster can continue making new ones in the mean time, the policy proposed here seems much too weak and drawn out. This type of user certainly shouldn't be allowed to continue doing what they do for all the time it takes to go through three or more off-site checkuser processes, etc., so I think we need a different set of rules for this. Texugo (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel like I should be responsible for reframing my proposal on a more appropriate page and expanding it based on the opinions expressed so far, outlining the things we still need to discuss, coming up with mock templates for implementing the system, and all those things, but this week, since I know laying all that out properly will take me some time, I am finding myself without sufficient time to do it. I will be glad to take this discussion to the next stage when I get time in the next few days, but honestly I would be very happy for anyone else to plunge forward with this too. We seem to have a remarkable level of consensus on the general idea at least, and I think it would be good if we can lay out what we agree on so far and then some separate discussion areas regarding what needs to be worked out yet: number of warnings, sequence of consequences, other issues such as what Nurg brought up about veto powers, the nifty WP page that Ryan brought up etc. I don't want the impetus of this discussion to falter, I just don't have a lot of time to organize stuff the next few days, so if anyone wants to give it a go, please go ahead. Thanks. Texugo (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-framed proposal
(I will have a go at this, chip in if you like) &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have started a variation of this at User:Nurg/Alternative user block procedure. You can comment there, but please continue to develop the proposal below as well, if you think it is better. Nurg (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Purpose
This procedure is to be used if a registered user already has an established pattern of problematic behavior with regard to the offenses below and has already been made aware previously that the behavior is unacceptable (i.e. we don't use this system to bite the newbies, anonymous vandalism can still be taken care of in the usual way, etc.)
 * Discussion:
 * How will we establish that there is an "established pattern of problematic behavior" &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly contravening a specific policy after being warned that the policy exists and pointed to it would be problematic behavior. Getting any policy wrong once can be attributed to ignorance of the existence of the policy. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Having a pattern of using hostile or overly sarcastic language in talk or policy pages can also be an established pattern of problematic behavior. Let's not ignore that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As well as continuing to make edits systematically (or even semi-systematically) despite being asked to wait and obtain a consensus to continue. LtPowers (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at User ban nominations for an example of an established pattern of problematic behavior. Repeatedly ignoring user talk page posts and continuing to edit in the same way that was objected to in user talk page posts, even if the edits don't per se violate policy is itself an established pattern of problematic behavior. I should add as a general comment that we need to make some decisions about the shape of this new policy and then proceed to implement it. And one thing we're going to need to make decisions about is how to balance positive contributions and overly thin-skinned or ornery delivery from the same user. How thick-skinned should we be toward more or less thin-skinned or ornery people who nevertheless have good arguments and positive contributions to make? It was actually relatively easy to ultimately decide we didn't want Tony1 around, because he rarely contributed anything positive and had unpersuasive arguments about the unimportant topic of spelling. Other cases will be harder and worth a lot more thought and deliberation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Only registered users? Would IP users not be subject to warnings and blocks too? Nurg (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. They are and should be, except in blatant cases of spamming or gross vandalism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, wait, I see, this is only for dealing with persistent problem users who do a combination of useful contributions and unacceptable behavior. Nurg (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, or at least cases that are not completely obvious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Though of course enforcement is different as we don't indefinitely block IPs. --Rschen7754 05:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, so for IPs we need a variation in the process, which the proposal doesn't yet include. Nurg (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

2. Offenses
2.1 Foul language
 * Discussion:
 * Whose definition of foul language? There are significant cultural variations. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncivil language might be more useful, but still rests on interpretation. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not support something this vaguely-worded - this could be interpreted to mean simple profanity. --Rschen7754 21:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

2.2 Insults/ad hominem attacks/disparaging remarks, whether of a personal or categorical nature (i.e. "my xyz proposal is being held up by disingenuous idiots who secretly hate this website" etc.) and whether directed against a specified or unspecified person or group. (added clarification)
 * Discussion:
 * Where do we draw the line between freedom of opinion and disparaging remarks? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Determination of what constitutes foul language and the line between mere opinion and disparaging remarks will have to be case by case and based on some kind of consensus. Compare the definition of obscenity in the U.S., which was given (to his later regret) by Justice Brennan: "I know it when I see it." It is simply impossible to have airtight definitions of "foul language" or "disparaging remarks," but that should not paralyze us in dealing with them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ad-hominem is simply unacceptable. When we're dealing with travel content or policy, there can be no possible benefit to our guide to not address the argument but instead to address the people making it. Not only does it drive people away, but it doesn't develop our policy or content either. It only makes consensus less likely. I think it is also easy to identify. --Inas (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

2.3 Repeatedly making edits you are aware go against community consensus and/or combining such unwanted edits with legitimate ones so as to accuse patrollers/admins of reverting valid contributions
 * Discussion:
 * It may be difficult to prove community consensus in some cases. The onus for proving the existence of consensus must lie with the party who claims that it exists. If something has been done a specific way without objection for a long time that does not imply consensus that it is the only way it must be done, just that it is an acceptable way it may be done. Local consensus would be found on the article talk page, general consensus would be in a policy with recorded discussion showing consensus. If a certain type of edit is controversial, and there is no direct evidence that there is a consensus one way or the other we need a way of getting people to just leave it until it has been sorted out. I don't have any good ideas for this at the moment, but I think this is an important point. Maybe it could be declared a controversy in the pub, which would freeze all editing of that class until a decision is made. Preventing frivolous declarations could be difficult. I am fishing for better ideas. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't this redundant with the point below? --Rschen7754 21:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

2.4 Repeated harassment of others for making edits which do conform with community consensus.
 * Discussion:
 * I suggest this be changed to "conform with clearly stated existing policy" &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's harassment, it's bad even if directed against people making edits that are based on custom, not clearly stated policy, such as right-justifying thumbnails. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it harassment when directed against a person who is making edits that are against custom but not against policy? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Harassment is a matter of tone and persistence of behavior. However, for example, complaining about someone routinely left-justifying thumbnails against custom would not constitute harassment per se. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

2.5 Encouraging others to ignore or act against established policies/consensus
 * Discussion:
 * It is acceptable to start a discussion to change an existing policy or consensus, and to take part in such discussions against established policies/consensus, so some rewording is needed. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of "Encouraging others to ignore or act against established policies/consensus," that is indeed excluding arguments for changing policy, and if there might be confusion, the policy should clearly state this. The point is that people should not be able to ignore or flout policies they don't like — or, worse yet, encourage others to ignore or flout them — without consequences. (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

2.6 Repeated edit warring, especially where consensus/policy is clearly against you
 * Discussion:
 * Yes. --Rschen7754 21:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

2.7 repeated spamming, touting, or insertion of false information.
 * Discussion:
 * Yes. --Rschen7754 21:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

2.8 Using multiple accounts to "sway" consensus
 * Discussion:
 * We will need to sort out the consensus policy to deal with this. My suggestion is that while an anonymous IP should have the right to comment, only logged on users should be considered in assessing a consensus. Sockpuppet policy should probably also be upgraded. I suggest multiple accounts policy similar to WP. Allowable for bots, but only the main account can discuss policy. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This should really be handled elsewhere. --Rschen7754 21:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree this belongs elsewhere. Danapit (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

2.9 Biting newbies
 * Discussion:
 * I added this as a bannable offense as it is also disruptive.
 * No. This can be done by accident quite easily. --Rschen7754 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rschen on this. I've "bitten" newbies by informing them about our touting policy and thereby offending people who didn't intend to tout (by the way, lately, I've been calling it our policy on how to prevent touting or the appearance of touting, which seems less likely to raise hackles from well-intentioned people). Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is really easy to bite newbies accidentally, I would not include it here. Danapit (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

2.10 etc. (add here if appropriate)

3. Warnings
Warnings are given clearly using a red template, which must cite:
 * what the offending behavior was, with link(s) to relevant edit(s)
 * a link to previous warning(s)/evidence the user has previously been made aware the behavior is unacceptable
 * links to relevant policy pages, if any
 * whether it is a first, second warning, etc.
 * what consequence accompanies the warning
 * what consequences of repeat behavior in the future will be
 * link to the policy instituting this warning system, including the list of offenses above and the list of consequences below
 * date and admin issuing


 * Discussion:
 * Examples needed. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming admin rights will not be required to apply the warning, any editor will be able to do it. I think that is fine. Nurg (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's no reason to restrict warnings to admins. I think that IP users should not have standing to make such warnings, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Though admins should be able to remove inappropriate warnings. --Rschen7754 04:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --Danapit (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Examples:
 * Template:First block for disruption
 * Template:Second block for disruption
 * Template:Third block for disruption
 * Template:Permanent block for disruption


 * I suggest this be "Formal warning" that if the behaviour continues there is likely to be a block. No blocking at this stage and only one template needed - "Template:Formal warning". The warning to be recorded on a log page as per next point. Nurg (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone like to start drafting a "Template:Formal warning"? Nurg (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there an explanation anywhere of how to create a template? I've never done that, but I could propose language. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the warning would look more or less like this: "Dear [Username]: You have previously been asked to stop doing x, which violates the following policy/-ies [link(s) to policy(-ies)]. If you continue to do this, it will unfortunately be necessary to block your account very soon. We hope you will take this warning seriously and make it unnecessary to follow through with a block." Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see WP has a whole project w:Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. Maybe we could ask their assistance if need be. Nurg (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think wherever it makes sense we should model these sorts of warnings on Wikipedia - they've had time to refine their process, so why not learn from them. In addition, if we can make these sorts of processes similar to Wikipedia's it makes things easier for people who contribute to both projects.  There may be more, but after a quick perusal the following series of templates looked like they might be relevant: w:Template:Uw-harass1, w:Template:Uw-consensus1, w:Template:Uw-advert1, w:Template:Uw-disruptive1 -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 03:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

4. Records
Warnings given are recorded on a log page and grouped by user, with a permanent link to where each warning was given, and any additional notes, links to discussions relevant to the user's problematic behavior, links to previous blocks of the user on other wikis, so other admins can get an idea about the user's problem history
 * Discussion:
 * Does this refer to warnings prior to using this blocking procedure, or only to the blocks themselves, or both? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to differentiate between a warning and a block notice. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Where would this "log page" be? Project space? Block notice log page? Linked from this policy page? A sub-page of this policy page? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would there be a copy on the user's talk page? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would there be any enforcement of keeping the notice on a user's talk page? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The log page should probably be protected. If only admins can issue these blocks,is there any reason why anyone else needs to be able to edit the page?
 * I'm not really a fan of this as written - doesn't the user's talk page serve as a good enough record? --Rschen7754 21:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. A lot of trolls will just blank their talk page as soon as they can, and we shouldn't have to go digging through talk page histories to find out what sanctions have been already been taken against a user. Plus a log page would give a space to track various relevant incidents and discussions which evidence the user's behavior. Especially given that it will take 4 admins if the process goes all the way through, it will be best to have a single place where someone hitherto-uninvolved in the situation can easily catch up on what the user has done and what steps have been taken. Texugo (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a standard text for a comment in the talk page edit history will be sufficient. Then all the info will be in the history.  --Inas (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest renaming User ban nominations to User block warnings and using it as a record of warnings and subsequent blocks. Nurg (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just thinking, maybe we keep it simple and follow Rschen's idea of just using the user's talk page. We could always change the procedure later if that proves inadequate. Let's get something simple in place rather than over-engineering it at this stage. Nurg (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a separate log page for warnings and block notices within this policy from User ban nominations, because here we are dealing with  "...a registered user already has an established pattern of problematic behavior..."  only. A copy of templates should be placed on user's talk page for completeness. Danapit (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

5. Progression
We work out a standard progression of consequences to follow:

5.1 First warning - three day block (remember they have already been unofficially warned and possibly blocked for shorter periods up to a day prior to this)
 * Discussion;


 * Is a three day block worth the effort? I suggest that as there is already an established pattern of disruptive behavior, something more substantial is called for. Maybe 3 weeks. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If they haven't been blocked at all before, I'd suggest 1 week for a first formal warning. But it should be a requirement that this is over an issue they've been warned about before, with the exception of spam and repeated gross or highly offensive vandalism, which can be subject to an indefinite or lengthy ban without warning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

5.2 Second warning - two week block
 * Discussion;
 * Suggest two months. Must be in proportion with other periods of increasing severity.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one month. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

5.3 Third and final warning - one month block
 * Discussion:
 * Suggest one year for third warning in context of other suggestions above. If someone gets this far they are probably a big problem and seriously unwilling to adapt. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At that point, 1 year is fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

5.4 Permanent block
 * Discussion:
 * The Jump from 1 month to permanent is very large, see my other comments. If someone comes back after a year to continue disruptive editing, the project does not need that person. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Indefinite block", not "permanent block". "Indefinite" is the word used in the block function and it's best we follow that. Nurg (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we make any allowance for appeal? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say no, in regard to a permanent block because (a) under these procedures, there would have to be general agreement among the admins. (b) It would waste a lot of time. (c) We are not a court of law, just a site that's dedicated to putting out good travel content. Being overly distracted by a small number of problem users is not a good use of our time. If we want to choose some admins who feel like being available to serve as a court of appeals for the first block, that might be worth discussion, but really, isn't the whole point of this process to minimize the time that's wasted with all this stuff? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We could say "no appeals for 6 months to 1 year" or something like that. --Rschen7754 00:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Who are you anticipating would adjudicate appeals? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The community at large, but of course any appeal before the 6 months to 1 year could be summarily declined. --Rschen7754 05:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting a vote? I don't get what you have in mind. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if the appeal was too soon, then any admin could speedily close the request to be unbanned on those grounds. --Rschen7754 07:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand any of this. Too soon for what? Please specify what mechanisms you are thinking of for appeals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we haven't made the decision whether we want to limit appeals or not. I don't support such a regimented system where four warnings must be used before an indefinite block, and the concept is completely foreign to all the Wikimedia wikis that I am most familiar with (Commons, Meta, English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, Wikidata...) But on those wikis, either an admin can decline an unblock request right away, or in controversial cases, the question can be referred to the community (provided no CheckUser/Oversight information was used that cannot be released to the community). An uninvolved admin reads the consensus and closes the discussion, implementing the action. If the editor keeps appealing over and over, either talk page access can be removed, or a minimum timeframe can be set before the editor can appeal the ban.
 * Which brings me to my other concern: this proposal confuses the terms "indefinite block" and "indefinite ban". A block is something that any admin can do when appropriate. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges, put in place by the community. Bans are enforced by blocks, but they are not the same thing. An indefinite block can result in a defacto indefinite ban, because the community implicitly agrees to the "ban" by not objecting to the block. Yet they are not the same, and another admin has the power to undo the block as long as the community has not decided to "ban" the user. --Rschen7754 08:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, considering that you all are saying that you don't want things to become so bureaucratic like the English Wikipedia is... this is way more bureaucratic and regimented than the English Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 08:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be regimented, but it's not bureaucratic. It's regimented because we still consider banning users to be a big deal.  LtPowers (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you speak for all the admins on this project when you say that, which is why there were such disagreements last week. --Rschen7754 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to speak for all admins; I speak of written policy. LtPowers (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is irrelevant, because we are discussing how to change said policy. --Rschen7754 19:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware anyone had proposed changing that particular bedrock principle. LtPowers (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference between blocks and bans is a semantic meaning put on those words by WP. I don't believe the distinction is in the software, and it has never been acknowledged as a difference here at WV. When someone is blocked, they are banned for the duration they are blocked.  If they are unblocked, they are no longer banned.  We've typically required consensus on the user bans page to enforce a block longer than a certain length of time.  We're looking at moving to a system where that consensus isn't required any longer, and instead a series of escalating blocks can be given by any admin, resulting a user ban.  It isn't clear to me that if consensus is against the block, or another admin is equally vehemently opposed to the block, how this works itself out.  --Inas (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One admin should not be able to stop the consensus of the community, in both cases. --Rschen7754 07:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If the user is caught later using another user name and not being disruptive, what do we do? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing until or unless the user under the new name does something wrong. But if there's no doubt we're dealing with a sock, the first offense should be met with an indefinite block. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the policy has to be to block in the case of using another account to circumvent a block. But the reality is if a user creates a new account, and isn't disruptive, they won't even be noticed.  --Inas (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm very reluctant to codify something down into policy that is this rigid and structured - not even the English Wikipedia is this strict on block lengths. --Rschen7754 21:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think a one year block is pretty much equivalent to a permanent. We can say blocks are escalating, as a guide, I'd go 3, 9, 81, 6561 days.  --Inas (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 6561 days? Is that the Wikivoyage equivalent of the Biblical "unto the tenth generation"?! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

6. Procedural details.
6.1 First, second, third and permanent blocks should be made by different admins. If four admins cannot be found who agree on the necessity for the final block it is almost certainly not necessary.
 * Discussion:
 * I agree with the conclusion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree here. I see the issue with the same admin performing all the blocks, but naturally admins don't want to familiarize themselves with complicated situations, so the admins who are willing to act in such situations are small; combine that with some nastiness from the editor such as threats of outing or real-life harassment... --Rschen7754 22:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point. So how would you edit this item in the proposal? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is good for the admins and users for the admin to back down after one block. It avoids it becoming personal. --Inas (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the same admin can't do the consecutive blocks. --Rschen7754 03:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it sufficient to say two consecutive blocks by the same admin. Texugo (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

6.2 In the interests of transparency, discussions about blocking registered users should be kept in a publicly accessible page on this wiki.
 * Discussion:
 * Possibly the talk page for the block log page. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless private information is involved (specifically under the Privacy policy). --Rschen7754 22:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns about this information being visible to search engines. Some people choose user names which are similar to people's names (which may or may not be the user's own). Blocking discussions could then be close to being a "Biography of Living Persons" issue. I don't think that the page should be easy to find if you know nothing about Wikivoyage, or if it is not hidden from search engines there should be an introduction making it clear that it is the user account that is being discussed, not a person, and that we do not know who a user really is. AlasdairW (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would magic word NOINDEX take care of this? Texugo (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We do this all the time on other Wikimedia sites - it's a risk you taken when you edit under your real name. --Rschen7754 00:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

7. Appeals and objections.

 * Discussion:
 * There will be appeals and objections to some blocks so we may as well sort out the procedure from the start. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a very good reason to prevent it, a blocked user should still be allowed to edit their own talk page. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good reasons would include using their talk page to spam, tout, or post extremely offensive things (e.g., racism, obscenities, statements of hatred — not mere anger or grievance — against the site or particular users). Anyone using their talk page for actually threatening remarks should be (and I think already is) subject to an immediate indefinite ban. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are good reasons for me too. I think they would get a block of user page for those offences anyway. I suggest the user page block should be confirmed by an uninvolved admin if one can be found.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely not in cases of spambots Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Or where there is good reason to believe that the user will post material that has to be oversighted (seen it happen both on English Wikipedia and on Meta). --Rschen7754 22:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What does oversighted mean? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oversight policy. --Rschen7754 22:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, that would be a good reason to block someone from editing their talk page, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sometimes people who try and reveal the identities or post personal info of anonymous editors repeat the info on their talk page after being blocked, and it's best to not give them another chance to do so. Another case where that might happen (that would not be related to harassment/intimidation) would be a young child repeatedly posting too much personal information online. Wikimedia sites are not subject to the US law about children under 13 posting private info online, but the English Wikipedia does suppress/oversight personal info of children regularly. I have seen this happen on other Wikimedia sites in some extreme circumstances, as well. Obviously, blocking is not a first resort in such a case, but sometimes it comes down to it, sadly. --Rschen7754 22:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Point of information: There may be some technical problems with allowing blocked accounts to edit their own User namespace. Each time I have been blocked, I have not been able to edit my own Talk page or User page or any sub-pages - either as a logged in user or as an IP. There is obviously some kind of hidden token or cookie being placed, because this total lockout still happened when I took my usual netbook to the Mitchell Library to use their Wi-Fi connection. When I used their computer I could edit anonymously but still not edit at all after I logged on. They have 46 terminals there and each time, after I had been blocked after log-on I could not edit as a (different) IP either on that specific machine. This must be some very low level token because, the Mitchell Library re-boots each terminal and wipes the temporary account space to protect from viruses etc. Please e-mail me if this is some secret I should not be discussing. Alice reported the same situation both by e-mail and satellite phone when blocked by CJensen. The obvious way round this is to provide an e-mail account for appeals. --W. Frankemailtalk 02:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll find all this in the Mediawiki documentation, so its is not a secret. But these things are configurable as part of the block process.   --Inas (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedure for appeals and objections should be part of the broader blocking policy, as it should apply regardless of whether this process or the existing user ban nomination process is used. Nurg (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

8. Removal from the record.
We may need a formal appeal process for removing a warning from the user's "record", which would presumably invite wider commentary on the issue. Also someone who once received a warning but has long since reformed and turned useful may want to petition that their "record" be wiped clean.
 * Discussion:
 * I'd suggest archiving the record after 2 years of good behavior, defined as behavior that merits no more suspensions or warnings. I don't think the record should be deleted, but there should be a message put at the end of the archived record, stating that it is now considered closed and never to be referred to or considered again in any way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree for the case when the block was not considered unjustified. If there is a successful appeal and the finding is that the block was not appropriate, then the record should be erased. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't erase the record in that case; I would archive it along with the record of the successful appeal, because it could be important to keep a record of that appeal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus that the user has now become a useful contributor should be all that is required. --Inas (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a merging of the two... after a certain time period with no other troubles (2 years perhaps), the warning is removed from record, or it can be removed earlier (starting at say 6 months) if there is a consensus that the user has now become a useful contributor? Also, what if the warnings go to multiple levels?  Would they all go away at once or in steps? Rastapopulous (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the good of this would be... since the block log would still be there. --Rschen7754 00:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It would act as a sort of "reset" – they'd start back at first warning (or, if it was handled in a stack like manner, the next-lower level) rather than the warning level they were at. Rastapopulous (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add your comments in the discussion subsections of each item so we can keep track more easily.

Nurg's reframed proposal
This is an alternative to the Re-framed proposal above. It is designed to be inserted into the How to handle unwanted edits section, just before the "User ban" subsection. Dealing with evasion of blocks by the use of multiple accounts or IP addresses is outside the scope of this proposal, as it is covered by Checkuser (which perhaps needs review). Procedure for appeals and objections against blocks is also outside the scope of this proposal, as it should apply regardless of whether this whole process or the user ban nomination process is used.

Escalating user blocks
This procedure is an alternative to going straight to a user ban using the User ban nominations process (for which, see the following "User ban" section). It may be used, for example, in the case of editors who, on the one hand, make positive contributions, and on the other hand, repeatedly make problematic contributions or behave in a disruptive way. It consists of a series of steps: educating and counseling the user; documenting unwanted edits and giving a formal warning; blocking the user for increasingly longer periods; finally, applying a user ban (indefinite block).

The first step in dealing with editors who make a mix of positive and negative contributions is to give them positive feedback on their constructive edits, to educate them about the community's policies and norms, and try to persuade them to edit constructively and cooperatively within those norms. If they continue to make problematic edits, the second step is to point out the specific edits (with links to the edits if they are not obvious), and to describe why they are problematic.

Types of unwanted edits include:
 * Repeated breaches of written policies.
 * Repeatedly making edits that the user has been told go against community consensus.
 * Repeated spamming, touting, or inserting false information.
 * Repeated edit warring.
 * Repeated attacks on or harassment of other editors.

If the editor continues with unwanted edits, the third step is to give a warning on their user Talk page. It is recommended to use Template:Unwanted edits for the warning. [''Change to specify that template is recommended (not mandatory). Nurg (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)'']

using this wording:


 * One or more of your recent edits ... (provide link to edit/s and describe what is wrong with them).
 * You have previously been told that ... (provide links and describe earlier advice that edits were not acceptable).
 * If you make edits of this nature again you may be blocked from editing without further notice, as per How to handle unwanted edits#Last resorts.

Sign the warning using four tildes (~). [''Wording replaced with template. Nurg (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)'']

If the editor continues with unwanted edits after the warning was given, an administrator can block their account or IP address from editing, initially for up to three days. If the unwanted editing resumes after the block ends, a second administrator may apply a longer block. This process can continue with increasingly long blocks as follows. [Blocks should not be placed by an admin who is in a content dispute with the editor. ''Addition to the proposal. Nurg (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC). Modified. Nurg (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)'']
 * 1) Three day block. The aim is to turn a problem editor into a non-problem editor. For a very active problem editor, a three day block might be all it takes for them to realise the community is serious and to change their ways.
 * 2) Two week block. We are still hoping the editor will reform.
 * 3) Three month block. Redemption is not looking likely, and we need a real break from the disruption and distraction. But redemption is not impossible. For IP addresses (rather than user accounts) consider a shorter block since addresses may be re-assigned or have different users.
 * 4) Indefinite block for user accounts. IP addresses should almost never be blocked indefinitely.

In the sequence of blocks, no one administrator should make consecutive blocks. In general, a user should not be blocked from editing their own user Talk page. They should only be blocked from editing it if they use it for unwanted edits of an egregious nature.

IP addresses should be blocked only for as long as they are likely to remain assigned to the same person. We don't want to block other people trying to use the address. Block periods should be shorter than above if there is a real risk that other people will be blocked. It is better to block an IP address for a shorter period and then reimpose another shorter block without notice if problem editing resumes after the earlier block expires. Difficulties around blocking IP addresses are generic to wikis and Wikipedia has useful information on its Blocking IP addresses page.

Comments on Nurg's proposal

 * I'm not 100% happy with this, but I think it's good enough. I would add that if you are the person who is edit warring with someone else, you should not be the one doing the block. --Rschen7754 08:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Including Rschen7754's comment I find the proposal reasonable. I would certainly support it. Danapit (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Rschen, are there any other improvements you'd like to propose? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would leave the User ban nominations page open, as an alternative process. There was a recent incident on simplewiki where an established editor who was blocked for a short duration then began to post material on his talk page that had to be oversighted. I don't think intermediate steps would be appropriate for a situation like that. --Rschen7754 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Or for IBobi. --Rschen7754 03:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that the new proposal is for dealing with cases that aren't as obvious as that, though. We will still be summarily giving indefinite blocks to spambot accounts, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, spambots/vandal-only accounts fall into a different category... this third category would be for controversial cases where an intermediate block would not do it. --Rschen7754 04:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to block such accounts temporarily, pending a consensus for an indefinite block? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it is a good start. I agree with leaving the user-bans page open as an alternative route.  I for one may feel more comfortable using it in controversial cases rather than going it alone.   Vandals/spambots are different, and we have a fairly effective process.  I agree the admin should be as uninvolved as possible.  --Inas (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a sentence in square brackets to the proposal re admins involved in a dispute, thanks to feedback from Rschen and Inas. Nurg (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the proposal is not intended to replace any other process such as the User ban nominations page. Nor is it intended to replace any of the existing text in the policy overleaf. This is an additional process for where existing processes are inappropriate or inadequate. The text of this proposal is intended to be inserted in the policy, without any existing text being removed. Nurg (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever? I thought it would replace some of the text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever. I have deliberately limited the scope of the proposal in an attempt to get consensus and get it implemented in a reasonable timeframe, without it getting bogged down in debate about secondary issues. If, however, this proposal is going to conflict with anything else in the policy or elsewhere, that needs to be raised and addressed. Otherwise, changes to other content in the policy can be done as a separate proposal later. Nurg (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I generally support this, though I think in your addition, it should specify "edit war" instead of "dispute". Some of these trolls might be said to be in a general "dispute" with half or more of the active admins, whereas Rschen7754's suggestion was a little more specific. Texugo (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in case of some trolls it might nearly be difficult to find an admin who isn't in "dispute" with them and who is interested in getting involved. So "edit war" might be a more useful formulation. Danapit (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On a smaller wiki like this one that is unfortunately the case, though it should be avoided when possible. --Rschen7754 19:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "dispute" changed to "edit war". thanks. Nurg (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth getting this wording right. Because the type of user we are talking about will try and make it personal.  I don't think edit war is right, because I would hope that no admin would ever edit war. What we mean is, that the admin is uninvolved apart from their janitorial duties.  So they aren't involved in a content dispute with the user.  --Inas (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wording changed to "content dispute". Nurg (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support from me, although I'd like to see the warning template(s) implemented before this goes live so that we have standardized messaging to use. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 06:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I, too, support this proposal. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we need to clarify what this proposal's position on consensus is. Does this procedure require unanimity, such that one or two admins who seem to oppose any suspension of this nature on principle can't derail it at every turn? And had this procedure been already effectuated, is it therefore more likely nzp would have been suspended or at least formally warned of an impending 3-day suspension than in the useless user ban nom thread that has wasted a lot of time? Because if we can't fix the user ban nom policy, this site is in big trouble. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it just takes one admin to block. The problem is that it takes one admin to unblock. --Rschen7754 11:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No unblocking should take place without a discussion? I'd say doing nothing is not an option, but apparently I disregard consensus. -- torty3 (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no unblocking should take place without a discussion, yes. But that doesn't mean that people won't unblock, anyway. --Rschen7754 19:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In my understanding, if warnings were given then the offender could simply be blocked. Other admins would not need to be consulted as the records would be clearly visible for them to see that the user continued their unwanted behavior after having already been warned that it was disruptive AND that the consequences of continuing would indeed be blocking. It would be difficult for another admin to argue against the blocking when there were clear records of proper procedure being followed and the user in question choosing to ignore the warnings. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, but some people could argue whether policies were violated, especially for the more subjective ones like civility. --Rschen7754 11:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we at least have consensus to put this proposal into effect? Or are we going to do nothing? Do we need to sound out the specific admins who refused to vote for any kind of block for nzp specifically, to see if they'll object to this proposal or unblock people after the fact if this proposal is approved? And do we need unanimous approval to permit this procedure to exist? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, nzp, if you don't like being so-called, I'm sorry, but since that's the only part of the user name you're currently using that has letters, it's the only part I can remember. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well nobody has objected here, so might as well do it. --Rschen7754 19:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been going on for more than a month and this particular part of the discussion since Nov 18, so I think there has been sufficient time for comment, and many users have weighed in on this, so no one can claim that this was a "hidden discussion" of any sort. Let's make this happen. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added the proposed text to the policy page. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Nurg (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for warning template
A long way to go before finished but a start suggestion for comments. User:Traveler100/sandbox-warning Feel free to edit. --Traveler100 (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems really complicated - if it takes 10 minutes to fill out, that's a problem... --Rschen7754 02:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the actual params we need. Edit Diff, Policy?  Anything else?  --Inas (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree, a little too many parameters. Was basing it on the list in discussion above. Is there a logical correlation between reason, policy and consequence? If so need only one input instead of three. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This template will (hopefully) not be used often and, whether automated by template parameters or not, it should include all that information, even if it takes 10 minutes to fill out. I think the parameters are more likely to ensure that all that info gets in there, since someone doing it all from memory is more likely to forget something. Perhaps though, instead of using two edit numbers as separate parameters, we could just use a full diffs URL in one parameter? Texugo (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading through the discussion above again, could remove the need for the consequence parameter and base it on the number of warnings. Maybe also possible to link reason and policy page, so only one of these is needed.--Traveler100 (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be a bit honest, if something like this went live, I would rather write my own message, since it takes forever for me to fill out a template like this because I can never remember the parameter names. I'm active on several wikis, and I just can't memorize everything. --Rschen7754 20:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes typing your own text is quicker for you on that page, always will be. But handling a number of warnings for a group of people working together you need some consistency. For example placement in category, would be easy to mistype that. Input tools have been created for listing, I am sure once there is some agreement on how the template should look a tool can be made to make the job easier.--Traveler100 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Traveler100, thank you so very much for getting something started. I have my own ideas for the template and now that I have gained some tech know-how from your template I have started experimenting myself. Once I am happy with what I'm doing, we will have two approaches to compare and pick the best from. Cheers. Nurg (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My trial template is at User:Nurg/Template:Unwanted edits. Please comment. You can do so at User talk:Nurg/Template:Unwanted edits, or here if you prefer. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

With all respect to the Traveler100's effort on his version of the template, I find Nurg's version more user friendly and quite sufficient at the same time. Maybe one more field allowing adding some comment which does not start with "This recent edit of yours..." or "You were previously told:" might be useful? Thanks to both of you for suggesting the templates. Danapit (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Danapit. I have added another field as you suggested. I propose my version be adopted. Any objections from anyone? Nurg (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I still have objections for making the specific use of this template mandatory. --Rschen7754 09:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of a template, the person banning could simply provide a link to the page about banning which would list any information the user may want to know in regards to consequences and such. That would probably save the admins time. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the admin should always explain why a user was blocked, unless it was obvious (i.e. cross-wiki vandal). I just have reservations about requiring the use of a template for this (though admins can use a template if they want, I have no problems with that). --Rschen7754 10:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the proposal says use of the template is mandatory. Do you think it is unclear? Nurg (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be made more clear, yes. --Rschen7754 19:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made it clearer. Nurg (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The template is now available at Template:Unwanted edits. Nurg (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A related question
I have not followed all of the above in detail and probably won't. Not that I don't appreciate the work people are doing, but personally I find such long convoluted discussions at least as aversive as irritating users. However, something does occur to me after scanning it.

A pattern I have seen several times is that a user will make a change to a policy or style guide page, then implement that change or many other pages. When called on this, they point to policy and howl about admins ignoring it; the resulting discussion gets very messy and spread out over multiple pages &mdash; article page & talk page, policy page & talk, often the user page and an admin talk page or two. This is ghastly.

Limiting policy and style guide pages to admin-only editing would stop this. I can see a number of problems with the idea, but it does seem worth raising. Pashley (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I would actually support admin only editing of policy/style pages, as long as the corresponding discussion pages were open to all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since Admins should be aware or made aware of policy/style guide changes anyway, this seems to make sense. We really do need to curb all the long drawn-out going nowhere discussions like those referenced. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen right now to draw out even further the distinction between our humble janitors and other users. We've considerably extended the ambit, with the discussion above.  I'd like to think people can still make a change to a policy page, and try it in a few articles as part of plunging forward.  The main thing is restricting the discussion to the issues at-hand, should he changes be reverted.  And that is always going to be a user related issue.  --Inas (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What about if we required that any significant proposed policy changes be advertised on the Requests for comments page before they were put into place? Since the proposals page doesn't seem to be getting enough traction, maybe this might be another solution. --Rschen7754 05:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds entirely reasonable to me. --Inas (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * After a proposed policy change has been placed on the RFC page, what would be the next step? 1 week of time for feedback? A minimum number of 'Agree' votes?
 * I'm slightly nervous that such a system might be gamed Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume it would be consensus, as always. I'm not a fan of the idea of just changing policies without discussion, so that sounds better. It seems counter-productive and encourages such users to ignore set policies and consensus by simply changing them at will. If someone is experimenting with a new idea, they should simply make it known, probably on the policy's talk page rather than changing the policy. I don't see any reason to change the policy itself for the sake of an experiment.
 * Incidentally, I don't really see the above discussions as a change in distinction between admins and others; to me it's just a matter of acknowledging the fact that our janitors may face bigger clean-up than milk spills and daily mopping; sometimes there's a real mess and we need to make sure someone is equipped to handle it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say consensus, or no objections in the event that nobody comments. --Rschen7754 06:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The system really doesn't change.  We're just acknowledging the fact that not everybody can watch every discussion, and if you want to change something significantly, then wv:rfc is the place to post it.  --Inas (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Unwanted edits
Why is no-one interested in this anymore? Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits. We've become half-assed and fallen asleep on the job? Come on! I know it's not as fun as adding content, and not everyone has to participate, but sheesh, are we just giving up? We have some freakin decisions to make! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's just so massive and intertwined, and I'm not sure we have the support to get it over the line. Perhaps we need a plebiscite, of the form that "we wish to grant a new responsibility to our administrators to administer user blocks and bans to users who continue to disruptively breach our policies after being warned not to".  If I saw that there was consensus for this idea at a high level, there would be more confidence in nutting out the details.  --Inas (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there has been enough discussion to actually draft a proposed policy, which would make it easier to discuss any remaining changes that may be needed. For what it's worth, I'm in support of the general idea and happy with whatever everyone feels will work, but given the recent nastiness here and at the Signpost have wanted a bit of a break from this particular subject area. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a fun topic, but it can be thought of more punitively or more tolerantly. It's just that all of us seem to have taken way too long a break on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that not everyone is 100% happy with the proposal as it stands... and nobody has taken the initiative to write up something better. --Rschen7754 06:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we should discuss the proposal more and see from the discussion what people want revised. If we just wait around and do nothing, I don't think that will be a good solution.
 * I think a major issue, really, is how thick-skinned we should be in dealing with people who have some good arguments and do a lot of good cleanup but also throw a wrench into things by having trouble respecting the process of consensus and sometimes really upset people with their attitudes. It's the hard cases that are difficult to formulate an airtight policy for, because it really becomes a question of who feels the balance between positive and negative is more on the positive or the negative side, and that calls for a judgment. But some kind of agreed-upon procedure of warnings and documentation would at least satisfy more people that things are being done in a transparent and measured way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what the controversy is. If someone is disruptive, knowingly evading policy, being rude, etc after having been warned multiple times, then they should be blocked regardless of what helpful contributions they make. Otherwise, the policy becomes, "As long as a user's positive contributions are greater than their negative contributions, they are permitted to behave rudely and act against policy whenever they wish." Positive contributions and long-term users may receive more benefit-of-the-doubt at first than a new user who commits the same crimes, but we should not view any user as being so important that we must tolerate bad behavior and diva attitudes. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Then let's agree on procedures so that everyone is satisfied that users who make positive contributions but also make themselves the flash points of ugly disputes have been given a chance to mend their ways, but are subject to a finite process that will end in their indefinite suspension if they continue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a big proposal so let's break it down somewhat. At present every single admin has the right to veto a block that is supported by the rest of the community. This gives too much power to admins. I propose that at How to handle unwanted edits, change this paragraph:
 * "If there is a need for a user ban, someone needs to nominate the user or IP address for banning on the Project:user ban nominations page and also place a notice on the nominated User's Talk page. If the proposed ban is supported by two administrators, and there are no objections from other administrators, after 3 days the ban will go into effect. If a nomination is not unanimously supported, then a broad consensus for the block is the only necessary requirement before the user is blocked."
 * to this:
 * "If there is a need for a user ban, someone needs to nominate the user or IP address for banning on the Project:user ban nominations page and also place a notice on the nominated User's Talk page. If the proposed ban is supported by two administrators, and there is a broad consensus for the block, after 3 days the ban will go into effect." Nurg (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with either your wording, or just removing the admin requirement entirely - I would expect admins would comment on a nomination, particularly if it was one that someone felt shouldn't be implemented, so the explicit requirement seems unnecessary. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd change the language thus: "If the proposed ban is supported by an administrator and at least one other trusted (autopatroller) user, and there are no objections from other administrators, after 48 hours the ban will go into effect, except in cases of extremely active spamming, vandalism, or flaming that require immediate action." Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "no objections from other administrators"? You wish to retain the right of each and any admin to veto something supported by the entire rest of the WV community? Nurg (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. How about "and there are no objections from two or more administrators." Substitute "three" if you think it's essential. But notice that I also decreased the 3-day period to 48 hours, which I think is sufficient. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a big complex proposal on the other page and it has got bogged down. I have suggested a simple, least-change proposal to try to get traction on a single key point. If it is complicated by changes to time periods etc, we risk getting bogged down on even this simple proposal. Re the policy, we do most things by community consensus, but the policy in question gives admins a veto right. You suggest changing the number of admins who can veto an action that is supported by the rest of the community. I still suggest we replace the veto right with broad consensus. Do you specifically want to retain this admin veto power? Nurg (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't care about that. I think it's actually better to eliminate that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "admin veto power". The text in question is intended to indicate that admin unanimity results in certain blocking after 3 days; absent unanimity, a broad consensus can also result in blocking after further discussion.  LtPowers (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right LtPowers. Don't know why I didn't see that! So my proposal is not a change of policy, merely a clarification. Nurg (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made the clarification to How to handle unwanted edits, exactly as discussed above. Nurg (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is the point that starts to get on people's nerves. It can happen that we get to that "further discussion" and someone who has been little involved can feel sorry for the user or otherwise drag out the discussion, and meanwhile the user tempers their behavior temporarily until the whole thing no longer seems urgent, blows over, and we come back to where we started. This is why I feel a three-strikes-you're-out plan is better. More decisive, more effective. Texugo (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And who decides on the consensus, broad or otherwise - an admin?

If you are really going to stand the whole ten year written and overt philosophy of WT (that became WV) that blocks (and subsequent bans) are a really big deal on its head, then at the very least you need to specify that the "unwanted edits" have to directly damage our travel guide in article namespace rather than just someone using obscenities or losing their rag on discussion pages like this. Otherwise almost everyone here is going to get nominated for a ban - including ALL of those who have been discussing this section.

The real answer is for a big effort to be made by everyone to be thicker skinned and avoid gratuitously winding each other up by deliberately rubbing raw wounds - whether using their usual account or a brand new, "black hat" or single purpose account. In short, a "play nice" rule. --118.93.67.66 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a jerk on talk pages counts, too. We don't want to make this a hostile environment, to the extent we can avoid that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironic that now we're trying to defend the "ten year" philosophy when we've been saying that we're interested in making changes... --Rschen7754 05:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's often a disjunct between the explicit rules and what actually happens in practice, Rschen. It's called hypocrisy. However, I've inserted " written and overt " to try and make things a little clearer.

Arbitrary break

 * Ikan, your hyprocisy is breathtaking. Calling me "a jerk" and "a dick", multiple times ... that's just fine, then, is it? Practise what you preach, all of you, before you anoint yourselves as holier than thou. I must say it's an odd theme to be spending so much energy on right now when so much needs to be done systemically and structurally to get the site on a better footing. A cultural change concerning gratuitous blocking to censor would be quite sufficient. Tony   (talk)  06:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, I was the one who applied a block to your account. Since this dispute has spilled over to Wikipedia, I'll happily submit to whatever arbitration is available there in order to resolve whether or not you were blocked due to bullying and/or an effort to censor.  If a neutral party decides that was the case then I should not be an admin.  However, if it is decided that the block was applied in an effort to deal with disruptive editing, and done so only after a nomination was made and multiple requests for calm were proposed, then the accusations of bullying and censoring should cease.  If this is something you want to pursue then let's do so and either get rid of a bad admin or end the false accusations. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 07:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will not waste time responding to Tony1's nonsense, except to say that it's total nonsense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not even enwiki's ArbCom can affect affairs over here. And honestly, we should just ignore Tony1. --Rschen7754 07:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd ask Tony and others to refrain from sending this discussion off on a tangent. We're trying to reach a consensus on the new policy, not debate about Tony, Tony's edits or his article. That can be handled on talk pages and in the post above. No one even mentioned his name in this discussion, so I don't see why he saw the need to derail it. <font color="#046380">James A ▪ talk 07:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've created a new sub-section in an effort to allow the policy discussion above to stay focused. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 07:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Another attempt, self-reverted 20 minutes later, to hound out, to punish someone who is critical—not uncivil, mind you, just critical; I don't name-call; I might speak strongly, but I am not rude. Let's see those who've been calling me a jerk and dick blocked, or is it as everyone else believes, a fiefdom for admins here to behave as they wish and issue punishments to others at their whim. Ryan, I don't want to see you not be an admin: you've worked hard for this project; but I do want a different approach to blocking. Until that happens, no one will have any respect for governance here. Please drop the xenophobic culture and accept editors who might be critical. If they don't have a point, just ignore them. Tony   (talk)  08:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't want anyone to leave - and certainly not as erudite, hardworking, polite and subtle an editor as Ryan. Yes, he can be infuriatingly wicked at times {as in this edit where he has the brass neck or sloppiness (I'm not sure which is worse when he's monkeying around with another's words on a talk page) to make it look like I'm claiming to be Frank} but hey, we're all human and fallible aren't we - I shouldn't have lost my rag in my subsequent edit summary. While I'm in sermonising mode, I'd counsel all - especially admins and bureaucrats to use the revert or rollback very much less with experienced editors and actually EDIT instead if they see something that can be improved. Very few of them seem to have actually read the parts of our old philosophy that made clear how insulting and challenging these peremptory and sloppy reverts can be. Above all stop blocking those who are not vandalising or actively out to harm our wiki. Apart from anything else, so much time is wasted and feelings hurt holding these inquests afterwards. Follow Tony's advice and just try and ignore those who make you foam at the mouth - maybe go and edit a travel article instead of pouring petrol on the flames. At the end of the day, let's try and get some perspective on this, from what I can see, Tony just seemed to want to change the ugly PM in listing time formats to the (more usually seen outside of the US and technically, given the latin derivation, more correct) pm - not really important enough to waste so much time on, is it? --118.93.88.129 08:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not just ignoring this ongoing thread and thus extending the drama, but since this edit has been repeatedly raised in several forums I wanted to have a response on record lest anyone use it as further justification for the continued accusations of censorship and bullying. There have been numerous discussions about not forcing a TOC preference on others - see here and here for two of them.  I'm sorry for unintentionally reverting the second edit on the user talk page in question, but as my edit comment makes clear ("per past discussions, please let individuals decide whether or not they want the TOC of their own user page moved") the intention of my edit was simply to remove formatting that has been contentious in the past, and assertions that this type of editing is "wicked" , "bullying"  or a "nanny state of censorship"  are uncalled for. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 17:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here. And I could see things were getting overheated and wanted to set up a cooling-off period. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Then you should simply have made a polite and reasoned request. Only if I did not comply without good reason should either of you have been rude enough to abuse the revert button.

Hind sight is often better, but if we're clarifying things, then I want to try and get you to see things from my perspective.

I've been quietly editing Wiki's anonymously for years - including Wikitravel. Because I rarely know when there's going to be a shout needing the old blues and twos, I typically do insignificant and normally unnoticed copyediting from a variety of ever changing IPs. Why should I register an account? I've no interest in the social aspect of wikis (I get more than a gutful of belligerent social misfits at work) - for me it was just an innocent time filler that was less obvious than reading a book, magazine or newspaper when on duty in a public place. When the IBobble heads started running amok at WT in an effort to protect their share options, I was sorely tempted to register an account and pile in with my 2c worth, but no, I just kept quietly beavering away.

Then the fork came. Halleluja! Way less server problems with long copy edits being f***ed up. But no readers either, but what do I care, I can continue with my harmless time filler.

Then I noticed this weird Alice - Frank - Tony business. What started it off was a nomination for Star status for a place in Colombia. I wondered just exactly why such a seemingly sane and balanced academic as PeterFitzgerald would be so uncivil and refuse to discuss a seemingly trivial image formatting suggestion which was in line with the practice at almost all the other wikis I edit.

Now I don't like mysteries (I suppose that's why I've had the jobs I've had) so I start doing a lot of reading (back then, I had plenty of time for that). I did some checking using channels not open to most and e-mailed Frank and ended up chatting with him on the phone. I also phoned Tony's number in Australia and the voice that answered was not that of Frank - I also couldn't work out how Frank could get from answering a Glasgow number (to check he was really in Glasgow, I asked him to turn the TV up really loud and change channels so that I could hear both the BBC news and the STV news. Then I phoned him back the next day to ask if he would agree to meet an old mate of mine at a local pub the next day - which he did so. I also have both a photo and a physical description of Frank and it is nothing like that of Tony) to being physically in Australia within the space of 90 minutes. Alice was more problematic. At first, no leads or chinks at all in her anonymity, but then I had a big break in (...excised to protect Alice's confidentiality...). Now I'd love to tell you exactly how I know, but since she swore me to confidentiality, all I can say without breaching that confidentiality is that I know from the evidence of my own peepers that Alice looks nothing like Frank! Before (...excised to protect Alice's confidentiality...) Alice, I had been in Ireland for a bit visiting the rellies and ended up actually being accused of being Frank myself when making some copy edits to phone numbers, etc in Irish articles from various IPs.

It also seemed to me that someone from another Irish IP was trying to stir things up. I discussed the situation with Frank again, thinking at first that it was him trying to stir things up and have some fun at other's expense, but he swore adamantly it wasn't him. Now those episodes were not conclusive - Glasgow is just a hop, skip and a jump away from an Irish IP, after all, but it did seem unlikely.

Now we'll fast forward a bit before you all nod off; Frank had been keeping track of these mysterious IP edits on a user page of his so when I saw what seemed to be one of the mysterious IP's register an account, I greeted her/him using a very useful template that Frank had knocked up.

When I examined the resulting page after substituting Frank's template, I quickly noticed that my creation of that page needed two changes: 1) make "Ireland article" plural 2) change "I'm as bald as a billiard ball now!" to "He's as bald as a billiard ball now!" lest yet another round of puppetry allegations begin.

What happened next?

Within a few minutes some busybody (as I saw it) mutilated my own words by reverting those two changes! And, if that was not enough, removed the table of contents altogether. I was outraged. On all the wikis I've edited, it's always been established wikietiquette that you only monkey around with another's words if they are grossly profane, or illegal or some other HUGE reason. Why would this creep (as I thought at the time - I know better now) do such a thing? My conclusion? It was this sockpuppet nonsense all over again. I saw red. I reverted "Wrh2"'s mutilation of my words with the intemperate and rude edit summary of Undo rude, uncivil and acusatory revision 2457244 by Wrh2 (talk) I'm NOT f********ing Frank!. An hour or so later, my own words are mutilated again by another interfering busybody (from my then perspective) who also reverted my own words. Words which I did not see as profane or incendiary or illicit in any shape or form. Since I was worried that SomeIrishPerson would not notice my mutilated attempts to clarify that I was not Frank (I was still editing from an IP, after all) I made this edit sequence:
 * "<Big>Misleading edits to other users' words</Big>


 * In most Wiki's it's considered extremely rude and abusive to change an editor's comments in talk pages (even to correct spelling mistakes and other typos) without their permission.


 * I wish to make it clear that at least two admins have now committed this sin and that this is the actual greeting that I wanted to give you. The substantive difference is that I am NOT User:W. Frank and the caption on the image (caused initially by my substituting his very good user template for welcoming) should not be reverted to imply that I am!


 * I really wish that these crude attempts to fan personality politics and denigrate good faith edits should cease and I find it strange that admins can't be bothered to welcome productive new users, but do have the time to edit war in this fashion. My version of Frank's original idea also produces a table of contents positioned on the right hand side of the page, so it would be wonderful if you reverted to that version, SomeIrishPerson. Sláinte! '"


 * <Big>Distinguished editing history as an IP</Big>


 * Would I be right in thinking that almost all of these edits to Irish articles are also yours?


 * Please feel free to delete this topic without reply if I am wrong or you are uncomfortable with it..."

The result? Within 2 minutes all my words had (in my opinion) been censored and I had been blocked from editing.

One hour later it was somewhat gratifying to have my censored words restored and my suspicions confirmed by the editor I had been trying to welcome to Wikivoyage (SomeIrishPerson) and whose talk page had (from my perspective) been buggered about with.

Yes, I agree that it is up to the user to decide whether he has a ToC at all and whether it should be on the left or right side. But, like thumbnail image sizes, have the graciousness to let up on the control freakery and allow users to decide for themselves what broadly happens in their own user space! --118.93nzp (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We need to draw a line under this nonsense. We're being taken for fools here.  Sideshow alley is taking over the circus.  --Inas (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I do understand your point of view, User:118.93nzp. I think it's probably best, now that you've said your piece and I fully understand it, to move on. I have no dog in this fight, really; I just want the process of consensus to take place with a degree of comity, and to any extent that I fall short in that, I regret it.


 * All the best,


 * Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)