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. 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.
If there is a need for a user ban, someone needs to nominate the user or IP address for banning on the [[Wikitravel:user ban nominations]] page. If the ban gets seconded by two administrators, and no objections from administrators, within 3 days, the ban goes into effect. If a nomination is not unanimously supported, then a broad consensus for the block is the only necessary requirement before the block be instated.
Any administrator may also apply a user ban at their discretion at any time, if they feel that the damage done while discussing the ban for 3 days would be unsupportable. However, the administrator has to put the ban on the nominations page, also, and if the vote doesn't pass, the ban is removed. Bans made without a vote and without an understanding of the gravity of this action are considered '''abuse''' by the administrator. In other words, a user ban is a really, really big deal.
Only the most short-term temporary bans (one day or less ) are exempt from the user ban nominations process. They are a discretionary tool for administrators in slowing exceptionally high-volume unwanted edits (e.g., move vandalism) , to halt the vandalism (however temporarily) to create space to clean it up.