Important: Wikitravel is exploring a license upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0, please give your consent or refusal here.

From Wikitravel

Add nominations for user blocks to the list below, but please do so only after reviewing Wikitravel:How to handle unwanted edits. In general the preferred way of handling problem users is through the use of soft security. In the case of automated spam attacks the Wikitravel:Spam filter can also be a valuable tool for stopping unwanted edits.

For a history of older nominations see Wikitravel:User ban nominations/Archive.

[edit] Outstanding nominations

[edit] Unacceptable usernames

[1], [2]

hyperlinked to "avoid acknowledgment"

These two were blocked indefinitely in October 2008 without a nomination, which goes against the letter of policy, but I think they should remain indefinitely blocked per Wikitravel_talk:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits#Permanent_bans. Both are pretty vulgar; the latter also reeks of cyberbullying. Thoughts? --Peter ^Talk 19:26, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

• Unequivocally support. LtPowers 08:14, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

• Support. --Inas 21:26, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] User:Craigb100

This user is intentionally replacing the correct URLs of various Thai resorts with links pointing to a scammer site. Example: [3]

I told him off at his Talk page, he sent me a totally disingenous mail pleading innocence, and immediately did it again: [4] [5] ...

I've given him a last warning, but if this persists, it's block time. Jpatokal 22:05, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Not saying that a user ban wouldn't be unjustified - but adding the sites to the spam filter may be a longer term fix, and may make sure others don't do the same thing. The site names would be confusing if you didn't see the initial edit. --inas 00:15, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Inas, are you saying that a user ban would be unjustified? Or am I misreading your negations? Anyway, this user seems to be operating otherwise in good faith, aside from the URLs. I would support adding the sites to the spam filter if they follow a consistent format. If that's not possible, perhaps a short block to get his attention, as we've tried before? LtPowers 09:27, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

I was avoiding trying to saying whether or not a userban would or would not be justified or otherwise, and just raise the issue of the spam list being preferable. I'm not unapologetic about the confusion. --inas 19:14, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

• Don't support. We've already got his attention, and it doesn't seem like he intends to change his behavior. As I understand it, he's adding lots of different links, so blacklisting might not be useful. But can't we just revert his changes? There aren't that many of them, and I'm happy to pitch in and just revert him on sight. --Peter ^Talk 14:59, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] User:Gopinathangns

Has been repeatedly removing the taxi services of competitors on the Coimbatore, Ooty and Chennai pages. Has been warned on the talk page and he did it again. The problem is that he is over 30 days old and his edits show up as autopatrolled on my watchlist and I may miss his edits. If we ban him, he will probably continue to do IP edits, but those will get our attention. — Ravikiran 08:43, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

• Support, at least for a short term "hey! read your talk page!" ban (not more than a week). I've also tried cleaning up after the Coimbatore edit warring periodically, and if there was a URL involved, it would've gone on the spam blacklist weeks ago. - Dguillaime 13:19, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

• Support. Gorilla Jones 21:45, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

• This only really has the effect of forcing the user to create another account, so their edits will not be auto-patrolled for next 30 days. Unless we are willing to ban the IP, and then ban the new account etc. I support a short term ban, long enough to get his attention. Perhaps for auto-patrolled users we need to have a Wikitravel:Mischievous users list. So, we have a list of auto-confirmed users that who's edits can be checked regularly. I know some people have their own private lists already. --inas 22:58, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

• Rather not. I'd prefer to avoid going past a "discretionary" temp ban (1 day or less), and have tried to disrupt his edits tonight with a block [6] to get him to read his talk page. Hopefully this will put the matter to rest before we need to resort to a multi-day ban. --Peter ^Talk 03:03, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

• Comment. This user clearly knows the story now. No need for further discussion, I would say that we can assume his edits are in bad faith from now on, and we just revert them on sight. I know several people are monitoring, so surely he will realise how ineffective it all is soon. --inas 05:12, 1 October 2009 (EDT)