Hi,
In this case I'm not even convinced there was anything much to revert. The only edits the user made were to his own talk page, and a clear mistake in editing a policy page. I'm not sure there was any real need for any kind of block or ban.
Personally, I'd have given them a welcome along the lines of
http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Welcome,_business_owners
and hoped that their edits to the guides were constructive.
I'm a bit concerned about the undocumented appeal policy that seems to have crept in too.
Ian.
Our practice for this has been to just revert, leave a talk message, and if necessary, blacklist the spammer's url. We've actually never indefinitely blocked anyone except for doppelgangers and spambot created accounts. The more exhaustive guidance is at or linked from Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits.
-PeterOn Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Snowolf <ml@snowolf.eu> wrote:
I should also add that the user was not indeed banned but rather
indefinitely blocked.
Snowolf
On 2013-01-21 0210, Snowolf wrote:
> Run of the mill spammer, replaced normal useful texts with spam to his
> own website and ignoring warnings, not sure what the big deal or problem
> is. How would you suggest it be dealt otherwise?
>
> Snowolf
>
> On 2013-01-21 0159, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> What's going on here?
>>
>> http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/User_talk:SheikhTravel
>>
>> It appears we got one of our first actual user indef ban without so much
>> as nomination?
>>
>> I don't want to tread on toes, but this seems totally out of line with
>> current policy..
>>
>> Ian.
_______________________________________________
Wikivoyage-l mailing list
Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-l
_______________________________________________
Wikivoyage-l mailing list
Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-l