Wikitravel:User ban nominations/Archive

From Wikitravel

Jump to: navigation, search

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

  • User:62.189.34.9 - Apparently a bot that is corrupting non-ASCII characters in articles that it edits. -- Ryan 16:47, 28 August 2006 (EDT)
  • User:195.54.84.14 - Apparently a bot that is corrupting non-ASCII characters in articles that it edits. -- Ryan 16:47, 28 August 2006 (EDT)
  • User:Fuk Mi. Vandal with no cleverness or clue and proud of it. A user page is not a place for hate speech against other users. -- Colin 19:28, 4 Mar 2005 (EST)
    • I wouldn't call it hate speech, just stupid speech. -- Mark 01:47, 5 Mar 2005 (EST)
      • Well, more just childish. I think pretty much every mentally sufficient adult has cleverer ways of being insulting. But I strongly object to the users use of bigoted epithets even taking his lack of vocabulary into account. -- Colin
    • Do not block. Yes, the vandalism has been childish -- all the reason more that we shouldn't let ourselves be pulled down to the level of a personal squabble. I would be extremely disappointed if, after almost two years in operations, one person, doing manual edits, was able to goad us into harsh hard security measure. I strongly suggest that we maintain our professionalism and maturity. We all know how to handle unwanted edits -- revert them. --Evan 13:52, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)

[edit] Wikitravel's first IP block

swept in from pub

OK, I've just made history and made 205.200.236.19 on Wikitravel's first-ever IP block. This dimwit has now pulled its stunt of blanking every page it can get its hands on three times, and it's getting late in my part of the world and I don't have access to Mark's nifty autorevert script. Oh, how I'd love to see its face right now... Jpatokal 12:07, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)

I've reverted the block. If this user needs to be blocked, let's discuss on Wikitravel:User ban nominations, per user ban policy. Personally, I think that this user's behavior was not sufficient cause for having our first-ever block. --Evan 14:03, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)

[edit] Anonymous Users Blocked for Repeated Spamming

I have blocked the following anonymous users for 24 hours for repeated spamming attacks. There have been 2 attacks in 6 hours. While I understand we should not ban users, I feel that these attacks are some form of automated attack because the attacks all happen quickly (over 2-3 minutes) and 2 different URL's (so far) have been spammed in about 6 hours. This blocking is only for 24 hours to see if it has any effect and to allow some time to discuss if a more permanent ban is needed. The URL's being spammed were not previously on the spam blacklist but are now. -- Huttite 04:09, 6 Jan 2006 (EST) - 08:58, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

The following IP users were apparently part of attack but not blocked as only spammed using one URL. -- Huttite 06:50, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

The following logged on users have been warned for spamming some of exactly the same content. -- Huttite 04:09, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

The last time this sort of thing happened it was actually a spam email doing the spamming. I don't think blocking users can be of much help in that case. -- Mark 12:14, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
That is why I didn't block the users. I have assumed it is an automated process of some sort - such as a computer virus that is giving a hacker backdoor access to lots of IP addresses. But on the off chance that it is a human attack the warning is there. How effective banning these users will be I do not know. My only hope is that it might slow down the attack so that administrators can keep up. -- Huttite 16:16, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
This attack occurred over a short period of time. Coordination of this sort implies there was a "master control" in charge of the attack.
This attack quickly adapted to Huttite's spam-filter attempt. This implies that there was a human in control who was able to adapt.
This attack involved making minor changes (generally & into &) in order to evade notice by people reviewing diffs. This implies both the realization by the operator that the changes are not desired by the community, and preplanning of malice.
The volume of minor changes in a short time implies that a script was being used for the attack.
Some of the IP Addresses were the same as used in the previous attack a month or two ago. This implies the attack uses proxies/open relays/virus-compromized hosts to implement their attack. It also implies an attempt at evasion from observation.
I believe bans are justified both as an emergency measure against the use of a script to automate rapid vandalism, and by violating the Script policy by using an unapproved script. I vote for this ban as a temporary emergency measure.
-- Colin 16:52, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  • Special:Contributions/203.163.231.250 I blocked it for an hour because it was a obvious bot spamming pages at a way higher speed than I could revert. It also looks like I was the only admin active at that time and I was distracted enough not to do a proper revert of the damage that it had done. — Ravikiran 02:51, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Special:Contributions&target=81.177.14.26

I blocked this spambot script for a period of one day because it had spammed at least 130 pages in under 15 minutes and I was simply unable to keep up. Ryan also blocked this IP a few days ago for the same reason and I based my actions upon his assurances that he thinks it's a spambot script. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 08:33, 1 November 2006 (EST)

  • I'd like to voice my support for a ban-on-sight-for-some-days rule for this bot whenever it shows up. It has come again today and has been banned on Shared. — Ravikiran 19:34, 4 November 2006 (EST)
    I'd support that provided the ban is never for longer than one week - it's an IP-based bot, so it's conceivable that at some point in the future a valid user could log in with that address. -- Ryan 19:37, 4 November 2006 (EST)
    Update: Since a block can be applied that still allows user account creation I don't see any problem with long bans. -- Ryan 03:42, 21 February 2007 (EST)
  • Also, I'd like it that anyone and everyone who blocks this IP note it here as required by policy so that we have a checks and balance system. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 20:17, 4 November 2006 (EST)
  • Since Shared doesn't have a user ban nominations page I want to note that I've banned the spam script with this IP for two days on Shared. -- Sapphire 14:55, 8 November 2006 (EST)
  • I've blocked this IP for one week for anonymous users. We've had no valid contributions, and a large amount of random-numbers spam. (Does anyone know how those work? What are the numbers for?) If this happens again, I'd like to block it permanently. --Evan 13:36, 22 November 2006 (EST)
    • Concur. If the IP ever gets accessed by a real contributor, we can reconsider (and plenty of admins list e-contact information so that that contributor can let us know what's coming). The one-week blockages aren't achieving the necessary goal, alas. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:41, 22 November 2006 (EST)
  • I don't know if I support an indefinate block of the IP. In case we have to resort to that I've added a note to the IP's talk page explaining how, should the IP change hands, a real contributor can have the block rescinded. Lastly, the IP was also blocked on Shared for a period of one week by Ricardo. I'm going to try to import this page to Shared. -- Sapphire 17:09, 22 November 2006 (EST)

[edit] Random Numbers Spam

I dunno what they're for, but it's either pure vandalism or some kind of crypto thing. I suppose it might be something to do with the numbers stations or something like that. -- Mark 15:02, 26 November 2006 (EST)

That's what's above. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 15:19, 26 November 2006 (EST)
I meant this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station. I was speculating on what the numbers might mean, just for fun. -- Mark 15:39, 26 November 2006 (EST)
Hmmm. I always knew Wikitravel would play it's part in world domination, but I thought Wikitravellers were going to be the revolution, not that we'd turn out to be the medium for someone else's spying activites. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 15:51, 26 November 2006 (EST)
My guess is that it's a test. If the bot puts some random number into the page, then comes back in a week and the number is still there, then it can safely conclude that nobody's keeping a very good eye on that page (or the wiki as a whole). --Evan 15:57, 26 November 2006 (EST)

[edit] 66.240.221.36

Another random number generator. I've blocked it for a week (for anon users only). --Evan 16:59, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Support the ban, for sure, but it seems to be working on Wikitravel Shared too. I can't admin there; can one of you folks fix it? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:51, 26 November 2006 (EST)
I banned the IP for two weeks on Shared. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:06, 26 November 2006 (EST)
It (or a similarly behaved bot) is now using different IPs to create and edit pt:Wikitravel:Wiki. Since the IPs change completely from one edit to the other (I've traced them to ISPs in Russia, the US and France so far) blocking or banning doesn't seem to work anymore, so I've blanked the page and protected it against anonymous edits. I'm not quite sure that was the best choice but I think it could spare us at least a few deletions for a while. -- Ricardo (Rmx) 20:00, 28 November 2006 (EST)

[edit] Special:Contributions/4.152.30.86

Let's block this IP (I vote permanently) for creating vandal accounts and vandalizing the main page on multiple occassions and moving pages. The IP owner has also started running automated scripts against WT, or so I suspect. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 19:05, 23 February 2007 (EST)

I'm a reformed vandal, but you refuse to remove some information from the sandbox, so I'm running scripts to punish you.Lezron 19:07, 23 February 2007 (EST)
That'd be a dialup. Feel free to send a complaint to level3.net -- Colin 19:09, 23 February 2007 (EST)
Nah. Either we ban vandals or we don't - until now the unwritten policy has been that we don't, and I don't see a compelling reason to change it. -- Ryan 19:47, 23 February 2007 (EST)

[edit] Special:Contributions/202.47.109.103

IP 202.47.109.103 should be banned immediately before all content on Wikitravel is removed. I would also strongly recommend an abuse report to his/her provider. -- Túrelio 03:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I've blocked this as a violation of the bot policy even though some edits were clearly hand-made. I felt it was a bot based on (1) very high rate editing bursts and (2) the ip's excessive ability to notice and restore corrections to its vandalisms and (3) its failure to emit any commentary about its own edits (it neither taunted, whined, not threatened). So while it could be a human, the profile doesn't really match very well. -- Colin 04:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Also... does anyone have an opinion about the length of the block? I don't. -- Colin 04:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The timeframe you set looks reasonable. Don't worry Turelio, it's pretty easy to stay on top of the vandals without blocking, an admin can revert probably around 50 edits/minute or more depending on their connection speed. p.s. Colin, I'd just finished making the hot cocoa, guess I'll have to drink both! – cacahuate talk 04:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
But why should an admin or anyone else loose his/her time by reverting something that could be avoided by blocking an IP number. This was not simple vandalism. There's no human right to destroy contents of Wikitravel. -- Túrelio 04:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
See [1] -- Colin 14:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I know I'm in the minority, but I really think the way to beat a troll is to bore them to death. Immediately reverting their changes or banning them simply makes this a game for someone who is trolling. Waiting for an hour (or whatever) to revert and selectively protecting important pages like the Main Page may not dissuade all trolls, but I suspect it will work with most. Much like pesticide usually breeds more resistant insects, I'm afraid that using increasingly harsh methods such as bans will simply challenge the trolls to be more creative and likely more damaging. -- Ryan (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
In this case, the user seems to be throwing a hissy-fit over how his touting of his lodge was reverted. Jpatokal 12:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
This stuff always happens at weird times when others are going to work, school, the airport, home, or whatever. I was going to block him, but didn't because it may have been considered "abuse" (as policy states) since I didn't propose the ban, wait the three days out, and possibly other factors. I was also hoping that someone might be able to give me more creative insight too. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 13:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

[edit] User:I-HATE-NIGGERS-WHITEPOWER88

I blocked this user for a month for violating the script policy. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Since I'm normally the one who speaks out against user bans, I just wanted to add my support here. Whether the user was using a script or simply opened a bunch of tabs in Firefox, anything that is difficult for a normal user to clean up after in a reasonable amount of time is something that is OK to put a stop to. -- Ryan (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Independant of his actual behaviour, this user should be banned for his racist user name (or choose an acceptable user name). -- Túrelio 08:22, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Although I certainly find this name distasteful, I would rather we didn't get into the business of determining what an acceptable user name is. Bans should only be based on what the user does (and this one has been inactive since his less-than-15-minutes of infamy). - Todd VerBeek 08:34, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] User:Daniel Brandt

I blocked this user because the vandlization rate was too high to keep up with. -- Colin 18:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

[edit] 121.247.0.0/16 and 121.246.0.0/16

A spammer/vandal keeps using IP addresses in this range. It appears that they're adding their phone number to listings in pages in India, in an attempt to redirect business. Jordanmills 09:33, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

[edit] 204.193.117.84

I blocked this IP for a period of 12 hours starting at 18:58 on April 22, 2007 for violating the script policy. The bot seems to remove plus signs and all content after the first ampersand in an article. Such repetitious edits seem likely only by a bot/script. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:59, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I've blocked the same bot from the following additional IP addresses:

[edit] User:213.202.80.249

I blocked this IP due to repeated (3 times) spammings of the U.S. guide. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 04:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT) Oh, and the block will be up in two weeks. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 04:22, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

[edit] User:89.179.13.99

Spambot. ~ 203.144.143.4 08:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I count 4 edits, so I doubt a ban would be necessary. These edits have been coming from a range of ips, so it wouldn't be effective anyway. I like your spam blacklist proposal better, although I don't really know how to make that edit myself. --Peter Talk 08:57, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Simply insert deleted below "lancelips\.com" and above "letomol\.com" (or unprotect the blacklist for 5 minutes and I'll do it). ~ 203.144.143.4 09:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Done. Thanks. ~ 58.8.1.11 09:56, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Retrieved from "http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:User_ban_nominations/Archive"