Talk:Igls

Merge proposal

Vote to merge or redirect with Tyrol. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The short discussion archived at Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#What to do with pages created by banned accounts makes it clear that the community is not in favour of deleting content submitted by banned users just because they're a banned user. Although I didn't contribute to that discussion, I made my feelings fairly clear in one of the abuse filters.

I also do not agree with your deletion of much of this article's content, and would request you reinstate it, unless you wish to argue why the consensus of the above discussion - which you agreed with at the time - should be overruled. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per TT and my comment in Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#What to do with pages created by banned accounts. And BTW what whas this about? Ypsilon (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• I thought we agreed in the abuse filter that reverting was the best course of action, but I seem to be mistaken. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• We agreed about reverting that particular iteration of the user, that didn't do that much before being banned.

Undoing all the work of the IP that created Igls would involve removing months of content from dozens of articles, and destroy an article which was once considered good enough to be featured.

I can see the argument that there's a bit of a double standard at play here on my part, but I do think the previous completeness and, shall we say, absence of malevolent content, of Igls makes it a special case worth protecting.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

But this is the discussion I found (with some text removed, since there is some information that shouldn't be made public):

SC: OK, thanks for explaining...I guess we should do what we can to revert.

Ground Zero: yes, I think we should revert. This is not someone we can trust anymore.

ThunderingTyphoons!: I agree with my colleagues.

That seems like consensus to revert to me, but maybe I was misunderstanding. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not consensus was reached to undo the work of this 149 IP user (which I dispute, but I can see your side of things), I don't think our private admin discussions can or should supersede a decision made in public by a (slightly) broader section of the community. Perhaps we should return to the community and request wider participation than was managed last time? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I wouldn't do any more reversions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a very difficult situation because this is an editor who was banned for making racist edits, and yet we're allowing his sockpuppets that evade the userban to make substantive edits to this site. Consensus rules, but we're really encouraging this banned user to continue block evading, so what's the point of the block, then? I'd like to ask those who oppose reversions what strategy they suggest using in this situation, because while on a case-by-case level, I definitely understand the argument against reversion/deletion, the result in a larger sense is to make a total mockery of the WV:User ban nomination process and our efforts to combat block evasion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw this page pop up in the recent changes list a lot of times, and I think I can help because we've had this problem for many years on the French Wikivoyage. This is a clear case of a dissatisfied business owner removing competition, and all the usual elements are present:

1. removes only business listings (restaurants, bars, hotels)
2. removed listings are still active and relevant (checking if their websites are still on is an easy way to verify that)
3. does not cause significant damage to the rest of the article

It's evident from the history that this user has systematically been removing listings of competing businesses from the article. From experience on the French Wikivoyage we know this is often at the start of the tourist season (May/June/July) when business owners see the terrace of their competitors fill up with customers while theirs remain empty, and then get frustrated. These users often already have a history of smear campaigns on sites like TripAdvisor (which is pretty big in France and Switzerland), leaving false bad reviews there. If you click on the edit history in the article history, you can see that they have been deleting business listings from many other articles in the region. That means they're probably owning a chain of restaurants/bars/hotels (in French we call this a "franchisé", don't know the English word sorry). Users who delete more than they add (net negative contribution 2001:630:E4:4220:F908:D1D0:2CB3:80F9 09:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, anonymous user. You may be trying to help, but your suggestions are way off the mark. SelfieCity is an administrator on the English Wikivoyage, is a resident of California and not a business owner in Europe, and completely trustworthy.

Since you are active on Wikivoyage en français, do you mind if I ask whether you have a named account over there? And have you ever edited on the English Wikivoyage under a named account. Because you're clearly familiar with our policies, manual of style, and concerns, if not our admins.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

ThunderingTyphoons, on the French Wikivoyage it's not such a problem because there are much fewer edits than on the English Wikivoyage so it's much easier to keep an overview of businesses adding advertisements or removing competitor listings, and accounts are not necessary (even less than on English Wikivoyage).

We do however have an unspoken rule that all edits (whether adding or removing content) must benefit travellers, so on French Wikivoyage the removal of active POIs as was done here would not be accepted, it is considered vandalism of the article and taken very seriously. There was one extreme case where a business owner over the course of 2 weeks deleted all other hotels and restaurants from an article except his own hotel and the restaurant of his son, and that guy had to be banned because he kept deleting content after multiple warnings. 2001:630:E4:4220:F908:D1D0:2CB3:80F9 11:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, well this isn't a situation like that, fortunately, though that's not to say I don't agree with Ikan Kekek that the whole thing is difficult. That's why I propose that we revisit the wider issue at stake as a community.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

So, if this discussion isn't going anywhere, would anyone (especially @SelfieCity:) mind if I rolled back the deletions? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I struggle with this. Some of the contributions are good, but how do we get rid of this guy if we don't roll them back? Has this discussion been brought up elsewhere? Ground Zero (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To answer your first question, we catch him earlier in future, if we can, so there isn't a whole backlog of months of material to wade through and delete. I totally get we want to discourage his edits, but deleting a really good article is so counter-productive. What is more important: we punish some guy, or we serve the traveller? Which option best serves the traveller here: merging and redirecting this whole thing, or conserving it, and expanding it?

As for your second question, no it hasn't, but I suggested it twice to no response, and the previous discussion on the same topic (linked above) didn't really go anywhere, aside from a small consensus in favour of preserving inoffensive work. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll remove my objection then, but we should see if anyone else is still in favour of rolling back these deletions. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, I agree with waiting. But not too long ;-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Why, though, would we let a possibly AC-controlled IP address rule the day here? (why else would an IP user come into the discussion here) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's unfortunate it takes so long to reach a consensus to undo the vandalism, regardless whether or not it was done in good faith. In a community project we can't have editors going rogue like that and deleting lots of content without having a proper discussion first. Lots of people follow the Special:RecentChanges list, and seeing so much content being deleted without a solid reason certainly discourages editors from contributing themselves. Why would you want to spend time on improving the wiki if others randomly decide to delete content they don't like?

I agree that a strong signal is appropriate here, to make clear to the user that deleting content without consensus is not acceptable. But to "get rid of this guy" (to quote other editors above) seems a very extreme measure. In my personal opinion, that is not the kind of language that encourages constructive dialogue in the first place. 2001:630:E4:4220:F908:D1D0:2CB3:80F9 14:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You are yet another of AC's accounts, perhaps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think so. That's what I said just above this IP user's comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so three of us are of the same opinion then. IP user, unless you want to see the articles Workington and Seascale deleted in the next 24 hours, I suggest you stop speaking in riddles and deny categorically that you are the same person as User:ArticCynda.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As Ikan Kekek said, it is a tough one. Our job here is to serve travellers, and if we delete good content that was added by a banned user, that would be a disservice to travellers and hence, contradict our goals and policies. But at the same time, since ArticCynda was banned for bigotry, I also fear allowing the edits to stand (presuming the anonymous user is AC) is not sending a strong enough message that bigotry will absolutely not be tolerated here on WV. And especially given the recent fiasco on WP with Fram, it is even more important that we prevent bigotry from taking hold in the community so we don't run into the same civility issues that we see on WP. The dog2 (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Looking at the history of the article, there seems to be a disagreement on whether its climate chart should be included. What are the opinions/arguments pro and contra? 94.119.64.1 12:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no edit war. I removed content that was added by a banned user who was evading the ban by editing using an IP address, but have no problem with you restoring that content, as long as you're not the same banned user as before. I wouldn't expect you to tell me if you were, of course, and we'll assume you're not, because that's the wiki way. Happy editing, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

ThunderingTyphoons!, that's quite an interesting assumption, given this IP user's edits so far. What would it take to convince you that this is the same banned user? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It might be, it might not be. But without proof, W:WP:AGF, basically.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said, what will it take to convince you? I'm certainly convinced. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And you're probably right, but there's no proof.

Through conversation with this IP user, we'll know. When AC starts his flurry of arguments and misdirections, they're usually pretty obvious. Further comment from this IP will make it obvious one way or the other. If no further comments or edits are forthcoming, that's a pretty strong indication too. It's the same reason why I asked user:Dinner Jacketed Individual whether they had ever edited here before; the reaction spoke volumes more than a couple of possibly coincidental edits ever could.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)