Wikivoyage:User ban nominations

User bans are put into practical effect by using a Mediawiki software feature to block edits to any page (except pages in that banned user's user talk page) by the banned user.

Add nominations for user blocks to the list below, but please do so only after reviewing Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits. After a nomination has been made, the nominator is responsible for ensuring that appropriate notice is given on the allegedly delinquent user's talk page of the nomination made here.

In general the preferred way of handling problem users is through the use of soft security. In the case of automated spam attacks the spam blacklist can also be a valuable tool for stopping unwanted edits.

For an archive of older nominations, see Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive. Nominations are automatically closed and archived after 14 days of inactivity.

The dog2 (topic ban on politics and sensitive issues)

Continuing the discussion from Talk:Israel#Sensitive Issues since there's enough support for this discussion. Pinging all users involved to continue this here: @Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek, Ibaman, Mx. Granger:. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The dog2 has been wasting the community's time for years with political debates on talk pages and often inaccurate or unnecessary political claims in articles. When The dog2 works on accurate travel advice instead of political controversies, his contributions are typically good, so my hope is that this ban will allow him to focus on those contributions and avoid wasting the community's time and misinforming readers with the political stuff. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per discussion linked above, and a long list of instances of disregarding WV:Tone#Be concise and engaging in unnecessary encyclopaedism, too well-known to bother mention. Ibaman (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This has been going on too long. It shows a deep lack of respect for the commhnity, and is disruptive to our purpose of building a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Since I didn't weigh in fully, I'll do so now. The dog2, I echo what Mx Granger said about your contributions elsewhere – however, when multiple users have asked you to step back on politics and sensitive issues, you need to do instead of doing the same thing over and over again. It's gone for several years now; how long is too long?

  During the duration of your topic ban, I suggest you take a through step back and learn to check what you're adding into mainspace. Take this time to learn why the community feels the way about your contributions to politics and respect sections; by the time your topic ban is over, you should have learned by then what to and what not to do.

  For everyone else – how long should the topic ban be? I would opt for 3 months given the length of their disruptive behaviour, which is enough time to self-reflect on their behaviour, but it can always be extended if the conditions of the ban are broken or if the disruption continues after the ban ended. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 01:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'd say 6 months. And I support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  6 months also works with me (or whatever everyone thinks is enough time for The dog2 to self-reflect). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 04:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also support 6 months. Ground Zero (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  6 months, no objection. Ibaman (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Although some of the additions by The dog2 are warranted, he clearly cannot judge when he should be sceptical toward his sources, how much his observations can be generalised, what conclusions can be drawn and when the warnings just aren't necessary. Please, The dog2, if you think something needs to be mentioned, tell it on the talk page instead and let other editors decide. –LPfi (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@The dog2: Ground Zero (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

See also Talk:Philippines#Questionable_addition. I'm not sure a ban is warranted; discussion & warnings should be enough. On the other hand, I have not followed things closely & will not raise an objection to the apparent consensus to ban. Pashley (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that "discussion & warnings should be enough", but they haven't been. You can see on User talk:The dog2 how various editors have been cautioning them about adding false information and controversial opinions back to at least 2017, and have repeatedly asked them to desist from editing Respect and Politics section. The dog2 ignores the warnings and discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

One other thing: how long should the ban nomination go for? I think 7 days is enough to form a clear consensus, but I'd be willing to hear to other suggestions. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits says: "If the proposed suspension of the user's editing privileges is supported by two administrators, and there is a broad consensus for the suspension, after 3 days the suspension will go into effect." This seems to me to be very fast. As The dog2 is an administrator, I would err on the side of a longer discussion period, like the 7 days you suggest, unless they make any edits to Respect or Politics while this discussion is underway. In that case, I would implement it immediately. Ground Zero (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, as he is aware of the discussion. If he thinks that a longer period or more voices are needed, I don't see any problem with that, but I doubt that would change anything. –LPfi (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

They do, of course, have until then to own up and things may turn around, but LPfi's suggestion is more than reasonable to me. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Since there's a consensus that I am to be banned, there is nothing much else I can do but accept it. The dog2 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Since it'll be 7 days by the end of tomorrow, how shall we lay the ban conditions? I'd say:

• no edits to anything politics-related.
• no edits to "Respect" sections.
• no edits to anything that can be deemed sensitive.
• this ban only applies to mainspace; talk page discussions are still allowed.

Does this sound good with everyone? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"Sensitive and politics-related issues" is quite vague. I assume "anything sensible" refers to things that could go into Respect, not everything somebody could find sensible.

The wording is OK if we trust The dog2 not to try the limits and others not to mind grey-area edits. If somebody at some point feels that his edits are too far across the limit, then there needs to be further discussion. Perhaps we should trust him and the community, so that we don't need to start rule lawyering.

–LPfi (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Works with me. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I support the wording, but I do not trust The dog2 not to try the limits. They have not shown respect for the community's opinions on this so far. If there is a clear violation of our intent here, The dog2 should be subject to escalating blocks. If there is a grey-area edit, it should be reverted with a reference to the topic ban. Ground Zero (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That or possibly the topic ban gets extended by 1 month for each violation. If it gets to a breaking point (where it gets extended to, say, end of 2025), possibly a block or desysop nom. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think GS's suggestion is fine. Still, we don't want to argue whether an edit is a step into the grey area. When considering a revert or block on this bases, one should ask oneself "should this be commonly understood to clearly be a step into the grey area or to clearly be a violation of the intent", not "do I think this is …" (somewhat analogous to the "knew or should have known" in Finnish law). –LPfi (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• yeah, for the record, as of yesterday there were edits about Hong Kong cinema, which IMHO are not "political" or "sensible" per se, but I would call them "encyclopaedic and unneeded", and qualifying as "testing the limits" and "not showing respect for the community's opinions". But maybe I'm being too grumpy here. Opinions? Ibaman (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think they're okay because they aren't political or sensitive and don't exactly waste the community's time the same way their edits to Israel or Russia have been. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think the block is about unreliable information relating to politics and Respect. The encyclopaedic and unneeded stuff may be irritating, but I think we are going too far if we include that. Most of the marginally relevant stuff added has been about sensitivities and is thus covered. I don't see how we can disallow "unneeded additions" without rendering the edit rights unusable – as the premise is that there are problems with the user's judgement. –LPfi (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done – the topic ban has now been enacted until January 12, 2025, 23:54 (UTC). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)