Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive 2017-2018

< Wikivoyage:User ban nominations
 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archives for Wikivoyage:User ban nominations

2005–12, 2013–14, 2015–16, 2017–18, 2019–22, 2023–26

The user has been identified electronically as probably the Telstra vandal, and has been engaged with edit warring. Just letting the admins know, so you can do what is needed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting this. My own view is that because of the filter it is now easy to roll back this person's edits if they are not appropriate and so I wouldn't advocate a ban. I'm definitely not defending their conduct, but should also be said that the 'edit war' is rather on the benign side. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, on the theory of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," maybe we should just police the edits and engage in permanent blocks of individual tentacles of this individual only when the edits are real abuses. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favor of reverting and blocking as he pops up - he's low volume and easily manageable. The only caveat is that other editors need some awareness of what's going on so that we don't have to start debates about why an account was blocked or an edit was reverted - I sometimes do a mass revert as soon as I notice a problem edit, and a few people have undone those reverts with comments indicating that they disapproved of my action. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's, excuse the language, bullshit. People, please don't do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, before we can begin considering doing anything other than staying the course (ie indefbanning on sight any new iteration of this user for reasons of block evasion, regardless of quality of edits) this user has to, at a minimum, respond to one of the talk page messages we keep leaving. We've repeatedly emphasized to this user that the doors are open for him or her to be accepted into the fold as a constructive contributor, but the onus is on him or her to be responsive to the concerns of the community first, before we reciprocate any rapprochement he or she might start on. Failing that, the question becomes: if all it takes to convince us to give up on enforcing policy is to keep antagonizing us for a long enough time, what meaning does policy have? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ultimately it's going to be up to you guys, as admins, to decide. But I have to ask; what's the problem with indefbanning the accounts as you find them? It doesn't take long, does it; it's just a click of a mouse. Why should we or any other user waste time policing and following this person around when it is in your power to just ban them? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is more of pragmatism towards a user who has been doing these edits for many years, refuses to communicate and seemingly not cares if their edits are reverted. I understand the principled approach that a banned user should remain banned until their bahavior improves, just as long as we are clear that road will potentially last as long as the natural lifespan of this contributor. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's rather an oversimplification of the Telstra troll's behavior. It seems to me like this user is playing a long game. Their edits have slowly but definitively evolved in sync with our tactics at addressing the problem - first they made subtle changes to their edit pattern to avoid tripping the abuse filter, forcing us to cast a wider and wider net, then they began signing on from non-Telstra IPs from time to time, then most recently they began establishing user accounts (using predictable naming patterns) as a further way to sidestep the filter. I have no doubt that eventually they'll begin varying the pattern of usernames they use, and we'll have to change up our strategy yet again. However, the fact that the pattern of refusing to respond to talk page messages has remained consistent throughout all these phases says to me that this is in fact trolling, and not a good-faith editor who is merely extraordinarily stubborn, persistent, and slow on the uptake. Aside from ThunderingTyphoons' very well taken point that filtering good edits from bad ones adds an unnecessary extra layer of work for us admins, the fact remains that talk of backing down is harmful vis-à-vis this user's clearly unconstructive intentions for the site. Not to mention the fact that all of this is not happening in a bubble - though it might come off sounding like conspiracy theory to folks who haven't been in the trenches and seen it with their own eyes, one thing that's been very remarkable to me throughout my tenure as a Wikivoyage admin is how often you have a troll who watches and learns from other trolls (for example, the recently resurfaced SpendrupsForAll was pretty obviously a star student at the W. Frank Institute of Disruptive Editing), observing and then exploiting the weak points in admins' response. We go down a potentially dangerous road when we let our resolve flag. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] OK, I guess my pragmatic point of view would be this: No, we don't need to police his edits. However, any edit he makes that is clearly useful shouldn't be reverted. If we really want to keep playing Whack-a-Mole with his latest identity, fine, but we can see that as many times as he's banned, he will use another alias or IP address to continue editing. So it's kind of a no-win situation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, the thing is, W.Frank made a whole lot of useful edits, while the other guy you mentioned has made none, so no comparison in that respect. As for this Telstra guy, he's definitely a contrarian playing games, but aside from being a gadfly, I'm not sure just how harmful his intentions are. It seems to me that many of his edits are attempts at doing something he thinks is good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I don't like giving this person any attention, however it is notable that they made an (apparent first ever) attempt to reach out to this community by the Travellers pub (that edit was blocked, but I did put it back on their talk page). See here : User_talk:BrendanJohnWilliamsTravelFan104 They have never responded to a message on their talk page before, but anyway worth a try. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cautiously optimistic. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should be very cautious. I just blocked his latest IP for 3 months for copying a huge swath of text from the Wikitravel article on the Dominican Republic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whack-a-mole is very tiresome, however effective blocking did force them to communicate (albeit a short sentence) so perhaps continued vigilance will force them to open a communication channel. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth a try, for all our sakes. I would then suggest to put a quick pointer to that talk page when blocking another of his accounts again. I'm not convinced he'll log in on the account the talk page belongs to again, and since you moved the comment from the pub to his talk page (which is good) he might never see it. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping he would get at least an email notification to that talk page. Perhaps not, so good idea to point. Maybe we should just create a one time {{telstraguy}} template to direct him every time he pops up? Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Unfortunately it seems contact is unlikely. I have created a template {{TelstraMessage}} at Template:TelstraMessage that can be used on their talk pages in future. Feel free to amend the text as required. Should save some time. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to gave some leeway to a new ip6 address from Australia, but then the pattern then became clear. Added message here : User_talk:2405:7F00:9800:11F4:39F0:F60A:C709:301C . Again all they have to do is reply. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The aggressive nature of creating multiple accounts, evading blocks and ignoring all requests for dialog means that I will increase the strength of the abuse filters. I am certain they are reading this page as well, and it would be profitable for both parties simply to discuss the edits. We will undo all the user's changes until they choose to do so. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could we tighten up the rules on who can create pages? If it were limited to only autoconfirmed users, or some other designation of appropriate trust by the community, the repetitive page creation vandalism by disposable one-issue accounts like the one this Telstra idiot is a specialist in would be stopped in its tracks. If legitimate new users have a burning need to create a page for a destination or topic they think should be included they can either (a) ask another user to do it for them; (b) continue editing for four days (or ideally longer) and demonstrate they are trustworthy and that they understand the concept of templates and what sort of things get their own article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely like you suggestion, but it unfortunately goes against the premise that 'anyone can create an article' by the Wikipedia foundation. I also don't want this disruptive user to have a negative impact on the fabric and mission of Wikivoyage, since that seems to be their aim. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure Special:Contributions/GreatRods is Telstra, but the slight degree of uncertainty holds me back from a ban. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found proof here. Blocking. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're probably right saying it would go against our principles, and for little more than a nuisance who can be easily reverted and blocked. Without wishing to encourage them further, at least Telstra lacks the nasty streak that some of our problem users in the past have shown. We can continue to deal with them. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return to blocking in advance?

I feel like it's taken an inordinate amount of user time to continually block more sockpuppets of this individual, and it's not working to persuade them to give up their game. Can we resume preemptively blocking attempts for them to post? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it seems like they are only doing this to get a reaction from us. They have no actual interest in contributing to Wikivoyage. Agree with preemptive blocking. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewssi2, if everyone else has lost interest in discussing this guy, please just effectuate the preemptive filter if you haven't already done so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed their edits are becoming increasingly repetitive, so agree with this proposal. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason we haven't returned to preemptive blocking? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All filters up and running, and catching a few edits. Problem is that they have adapted to creating random user names that avoid the block filters. Really stupid strategy though, since it is easy enough to identify there edits and remove in a few clicks. Much easier for them if they could just ask us how to lift the block and we would help them. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Activity

User:VanFert100 has a pattern similar to recent Telstra edits (edits to pacific islands etc). It would be great if they reply and confirm that it isn't so.

Also Telstra, you are reading these comments right now, so just respond to us to we can cease blocking your edits. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was somewhat encouraged today to see that our Telstra contributor had tried to communicate on their talk page here : User talk:Brendan John Williams

Unfortunately it would appear that they are not willing to actually discuss their edits or copy violations. We have asked them to agree to stop copying Wikipedia and web content, and they do not want to acknowledge. It is even possible that they might not even have the faculty for such a discussion. How should we proceed? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have no choice but to revert edits in violation of copyright/copyleft. It's a shame to block an editor for a possible lack of ability to understand basic Wikivoyage policies, but that would be no different from blocking someone who doesn't understand English sufficiently to post in English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should see if we can wait 24 hours before considering another block, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If 'Brendan John Williams' is reading this, then we would really like to resolve this problem and will give you the opportunity to discuss with us. If not then we will revert all of your edits and block you until you do discuss. If you try to create another account then this will be against our policy and that will be blocked. The only way to get what you want is to talk. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say this abortive attempt to communicate is just another part of the game this user is playing with us. After all, this is not the first time we've made contact with the user only to walk away even more frustrated than before. For the sake of prudence, I agree with Ikan's idea of waiting 24 hours. But after that, not only do I think this user should be banned, but I think the door should be closed on any further attempts to make contact with him, and the one and only answer should be permabanning him on sight as before. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are back to creating throw away accounts and avoiding us. It was just a ruse. That said, it also seems highly likely they just cannot communicate in English, which is obviously a problem for an English language Wiki.
I'll give them a few more hours to respond before rolling back every single edit they made yesterday, --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt this is a case of a user with no command of English. If he can identify pertinent text in Wikipedia and elsewhere and incorporate it into the appropriate section of our Wikivoyage article - historical factoids in "Understand" rather than "Go next", POIs in "See" rather than "Connect" - then he has at least a good enough command of English to understand and respond to the simple questions asked of him on his user talk page. I think it's important to regard any attempt to communicate with this user from here on out - be it via the TelstraMessage template, sternly worded edit summaries, earnest pleadings with him to come to the table and talk to us, whatever - as feeding the troll. The procedure from now on needs to be one of denying recognition - simply ban the user with a minimum of fuss or commentary, and move on. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His edits do suggest to me that he is not a native speaker and doesn't fully know the rules of English grammar or syntax, but for whatever it's worth, I don't think his English is as bad as the constructions he used in his recent talk page posts. Anyway, I agree with you on denying recognition, but we need to avoid blocking legitimate users in the process. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously use non-English speakers extensively (if not the majority of editors could be categorized thus). I believe the only way this user is capable of contributing is through copy and pasting other sources and they are ignoring us because they know precisely that they do not have the capability to edit in English and follow policy.
The new tag filter is catching a few new legitimate users, but not preventing them from editing. I think it is unlikely that Telstra will work out how to circumvent this filter so we can use it to identify and delete all of their edits. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the new filter is catching too many innocent contributors. I removed the message for now and renamed the tag to something more friendly. It will still allow us to see their edits as they come through. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Loads of sockpuppets by this individual tonight. Is there any happy medium? It's a bit annoying to have so much busywork. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It almost seemed like they had given up, but a week later they conducted an edit bombing campaign on Friday and Saturday. I hope that they recognise that the considerable time that they are spending in letting us know that Korea has mountains and African countries have villages is basically reverted by us in less than a minute. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if this "Brendan John Williams" is an imposer. Maybe someone has a grudge against Mr. Williams, and wants to soil his name on the internet. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what would that change? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism-only account; I have just had to undo edits to about forty pages. Get rid of this creature, and please delete this too. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Traveler100 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, mate. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what was it that the user wanted to tell us so desperately by spamming over dozens of pages? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically nonsense about countries and governments all being rogue and illegal and we shouldn't travel anywhere because passports are a rip off and anywhere we go there'll be a government profiting from our movement so we should just stay at home and spend money on material goods instead like iPhones and expensive TV. All in great sincerity, mind. Such is your average conspiracy theorist. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I for one subscribe to the belief that Bielefeld is a hoax created by "them" for nefarious purposes....Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Bundeskanzleramt can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a place. The truth is not out there, so don't even try to look. There's nothing behind the curtain, in fact there may not even be a curtain. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC) (not really)[reply]

Userpage is an advert for an oven cleaning service in Melbourne. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just put a delete tag on the user page. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With users like that, any admin who comes across them should just indefblock. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally inappropriate username. Is that enough to warrant a permanent ban, or is the some other avenue to go down first (e.g. asking them to change their username with the help of a steward)? I'm asking because there doesn't seem to be any information about how to approach stupid usernames like this one. I have blocked them for three days for vandalising the pub, but obviously we don't want anybody editing with a username like that, even if the person behind the name decides to become a productive member of the community. Advice from more experienced admins would be appreciated. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The username, apart from being horrifically obscene, expresses clearly vandalistic intentions (see examples "User:I AM GOING TO VANDALIZE!!!!!" and "User X is a NAZI!!!!!!" in Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban). Should be indefbanned. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also w:User talk:CockAndClitAndBalls. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did as you said. Thanks for finding the relevant example. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in the future I would indef block a username like that straight away. They clearly do not intend to build a travel guide. Gizza (roam) 23:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A user who only exists to antagonise others and trash talk Wikivoyage. Hasn't contributed to mainspace once in over four years. Has contributed to many arguments and other threads that have sowed disagreement among our community. I propose a permanent ban. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in a crash course on this user's history with our site, there's a nice compendium at User talk:AndreCarrotflower/2017#Userban comments. Suffice it to say I'm enthusiastically in support of such a ban. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like DaGizza beat us to it. Thank you! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I plunged forward and banned the user when I saw this diff and then checked their "contributions". Clearly not here to improve Wikivoyage. Gizza (roam) 00:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DaGizza! We shall never see their like again. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.83.177.34

I blocked this user for a year, who is a low-volume but long-term vandal whose specialty is very stealthy edits adding factually inaccurate material - his contribution history includes the addition of such dubious unsourced assertions as "the Shanghainese eat their chicken ice cold" and "Chicago was founded in 1803" (rather than 1833, the correct date which was cited in the Chicagoland article before his edit). This is also the same IP address that was adding inaccurate data to the climate templates, which Ikan and myself had to revert in the past. This kind of vandalism is easy to mistake for benign Wikignoming, so I figured it was best to explain myself here in case anyone questions it. Additionally, I think the long duration of the block is justifiable because this is clearly a static IP address that doesn't change hands frequently - edits of this nature from this account go back to 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I was on the verge of leaving a message on your talk page as the block seemed extreme, but now I understand :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I rolled back all their edits in the recent contribution history that still said "current". Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was probably a good idea. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArticCynda: Block for repeated bigoted content in articlespace?

It's painful for me to even spend time thinking about this, but please look at Talk:Brussels/International District, where User:ArticCynda's bigoted language, or some of it, is documented. I think he should be subjected to a short block, initially of 1 day, for intolerable edits like one that included the phrase "After the Second World War and the defeat of the Jews". I simply don't think we should tolerate people referring to the genocidal mass murder of civilians as "defeat", and as you will see if you allow yourself the disturbing experience of reading through that thread, this is not just a single weird edit but part of a long pattern of anti-Muslim, anti-African and anti-Jewish edits. Allowing a user to persist with bigoted edits after being warned is a good way to make this site a very hostile, unpleasant place for any member of the targeted groups, and we have banned users before for creating a hostile workplace for other volunteers. I would not like to see ArticCynda banned, if that can be avoided, but I do think the graduated system of short and then longer blocks should start. I should say, it will distress me to read attempts to defend his words by claiming that he is not a racist despite the obvious evidence in his words and that we seek to inform and not offend, as if providing biased content based on bigotry helps anyone, but I can already predict such arguments being advanced, and who will advance them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced a block is necessary; it may be but I have not been following the discussion so cannot be sure. Certainly it should be a last resort.
Would anyone care to comment on Mindanao#Understand? That text, which is mostly my writing, and several related warning boxes deal with issues around Islamic terrorism and piracy which, in that region, is mostly done by Muslims. Pashley (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a difference between saying "Terrorism is an issue in x, there have been y attacks with z victims since so and so" and, well, the stuff ArticCynda has been writing. What I find especially distressing is that he does not deem it necessary to even address his edits that to me seem to be blatant antisemitism. If they are not, where is the explanation what he did mean? I think we can do without 4chan type trollery or "edgy" behavior here and we certainly should draw the line at bigotry of any kind, no matter what background it comes from and whether it is wrapped in the guise of a "joke". Because even if many of those people who started the subreddits and 4chan threads that gave the rise to the current wave of online fascism were indeed joking, those "jokes" have very clearly paved the way for people who actually mean excrement like that to scream it into the ether. I for one would give the user in question one last chance to clarify whatever he meant and a start of escalating blocks from the next even remotely bigoted comment he makes, no matter whether in mainspace or not which he doesn't have a damn good explanation (and rewording) for. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley, I gave you a link to read through. I respect you, but I must say, offering an admittedly uninformed opinion instead of reading the linked thread before expressing an opinion is really unhelpful, and I don't think sidetracking to the wording of a warning about terrorism is really the best use of this thread, though I'll be happy to look at that text at some point. And I couldn't agree more with the distinctions Hobbitschuster made above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support sanctions for the pattern of racism in ArcticCynda's edits. User:Xsobev has made a helpful list of some examples here. At best, behavior like this wastes the community's time. It also makes the travel guide worse, and at worst it has the potential to drive off good contributors and damage Wikivoyage's reputation. A system of escalating blocks seems reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage is not a place for hate speech, period. Not only is it something most of the community doesn't want to stumble upon (as per this discussion and the discussions referred to above), but more importantly, users and readers of our travel guide form their opinion about Wikivoyage as a whole based upon what's written in our articles (what else?).
Blocks of other than vandalism-only/touting-only accounts should definitely be the very last resort, and I don't think ArcticCynda as an otherwise productive and valuable editor should be blocked yet, but unfortunately we're getting there. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but Wikivoyage has no duty to serve as a platform for them. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to reluctantly oppose the use of blocks to give an advantage to one side in this content dispute. If there is a non-obvious danger in any location, our first priority is not to avoid offending specific local groups by whitewashing what's happening... as the safety of the voyager comes first. We don't cover up issues like "Océade is not only popular among locals and tourists, but also a hangout for young Moroccan immigrants who operate in groups to steal valuables, and are also known to harass girls and women" unless there's a factual basis to believe that theft or crime are not an issue (or no longer an issue) in that location. Conversely, I disagree with much of what ArticCynda has posted because of the misplaced BJAODN-like tone. A "Get in" section with "Getting in is definitely easier than getting out alive" with corresponding "Go next" "After visiting this district, your next destination will probably either be a hospital or a crematorium, depending on how lucky you were" makes light and jest of a serious issue. If there's one point where we don't want to be making April 1-style jokes, it's when warning of crime or other immediate danger to the safety of voyagers. K7L (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
K7L, I unfortunately think you've got it backwards. We shouldn't say "People of this skin color commit crimes against travelers here" unless we have a factual basis to believe that this is true. I just spent half an hour looking for sources to support that claim, and I found nothing – not a single word to support this allegation. "Traveler comes first" probably means something closer to "don't invent stories about crimes" than a mandate to keep unverifiable allegations of crimes. If you can find some reason to believe that there is a factual, significant problem, then I agree that it would be appropriate to include it. But we need to include this allegation because some guy on the internet said so, until he can be proven to be wrong? That's not such a convincing argument. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support the statements made by User:Ikan Kekek, User:Hobbitschuster and User:Mx. Granger, including the proposed system of escalating blocks. I urge everyone else to read through the linked discussion. I cannot tolerate User:ArticCynda's discriminatory and bigoted statements and behaviour, which are both distressing to editors and travelers, and should have no place on WV. Why he/she keeps making such statements after clear warnings, and jeopardizes his/her positive contributions (which also have been acknowledged) is a mystery to me. But maybe, User:ArticCynda will now finally provide a clear non-evading explanation, which is the least I would expect given the circumstances. Xsobev (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Everyone who has been following this debate through the Brussels talk pages knows that I've been trying to stay as neutral as possible on this, and putting a block on this user really puts me at a decision point. ArticCynda has been a good editor in the past, but he/she has been doing one of two things with the Brussels district articles, and I'm not totally which they are doing:

  1. It's possible that ArticCynda has been trying to get attention to the Brussels article by inserting controversial statements with the hope that other users would "discover" them and then those users would work on districtifying the article. This is obviously not how you get admins, etc., to work on your project, and it should be obvious that this goes against Wikivoyage's general mission. These types of tactics, especially if they backfire as they have done here, do not belong on Wikivoyage and ArticCynda will not stop using these kinds of tactics, a one-day block may be necessary.
  2. There's also the possibility ArticCynda has something against Brussels and is trying to cause problems with the article and turn travelers away from the city. Again, tactics are being used here that are not acceptable on Wikivoyage, and again in this case if ArticCynda will not stop a one-day block may be necessary.
  3. There's also the possibility ArticCynda really does hate Jews, Muslims, etc. That really doesn't make sense considering his/her past edits, and I didn't think such people existed these days, but obviously this is very unreasonable activity that needs to be stopped. We don't talk about controversial issues on Wikivoyage. When possible, we try to contribute material that will not bother anyone, with emphasis on anyone. Again, if this user will not stop writing antisemitic content, a block may be necessary as mentioned at the beginning of this discussion.

In the end, I agree with Granger: ArticCynda's actions waste the community time and do not help the travel guide. If such actions only happened once or a few times and then ArticCynda apologized and stopped, that would be one thing, but since this user obviously cannot stop doing this sort of thing and will not apologize for writing this, overall I would give this block a weak support. Selfie City (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the proposal of banning anyone merely because their political opinion (including political correctness) differs from one's own. I hope we all know enough history to remember in what kind of regime/climate the forceful removal of ideological opponents ends. If one doesn't like what is being written or how it is phrased, then the Edit button should be the only solution. ArticCynda (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArticCynda, I agree with the ending of your statement normally: the edit button is the solution. However, it's clear that you have been continuously doing this and won't stop, even when I commented to you saying that, if you stopped writing about controversial issues, I would help you work on the Brussels articles. But you simply won't back out of the situation you have put yourself in. We're not trying to ban you due to your political opinion; we're trying to do a one-day block so you stop continually causing trouble and not apologizing for these edits. Selfie City (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just read through Talk:Brussels/International District and you will see how much of our time has been wasted because of this. When we could have been really improving the site, we are instead spending our time searching through the edits of someone whom we thought was trustworthy. ArticCynda, if you apologize and make clear that you will stop making these kinds of edits, we won't block or ban you (certain editors don't agree with that proposal — Selfie City (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)). That's all there is to it. If you'll admit that these edits do not belong on this website, and you'll promise you will not bring up controversial issues in your contributions ever again, then we do not need to block you. The problem is that, like other users in the past, when we try to explain you try to dodge the real problems with your edits. Selfie City (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikivoyage is not to provide a venue where editors are compelled to "promise you will not bring up controversial issues in your contributions ever again". The purpose of Wikivoyage is to provide factual travel information which is fair and puts the voyager first. If crime is a controversial issue, so be it, but the voyager's safety comes first... before any attempt to whitewash real dangers to serve political correctness, but also before any desire to turn legitimate safety warnings into jokes and nonsense. We're not the Uncyclopedia and today is not 1 April. K7L (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree we should warn travelers not to go to dangerous neighborhoods. --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"If you'll admit that these edits do not belong on this website, and you'll promise you will not bring up controversial issues in your contributions ever again, then we do not need to block you" - you don't have the authority to unilaterally decide this. Wikivoyage is governed by community consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArticCynda, parts of the list of comments you made that someone else posted further up isn't "political opinion", it's racism. Anti-racist != politically correct. You can say, "On average, more crime happens in areas with X race in it". It might be politically incorrect to point that out or to suggest that persons be more aware when travelling through an area with a high concentration of race X but in that case you are speaking to facts that are recorded or can be verified objectively. I think some of the comments, while worded in a way that could be interpreted as racist, if they were written in good faith serve as genuine warnings. Personally, I'd say you can warn about danger without being an ass or attributing the danger to the race as a whole but I understand that those additions could have been corrected by a passing editor. We have warnings that specify/profile the type of person most frequently involved in running a scam (pretty Asian woman who approaches you, speaks English, and ends up recommending a restaurant that will then scam you, is the first that comes to mind). I can assume good faith but poor execution for the warning edits. The rest of your edits, however, do not indicate to me that you're acting in good faith yet wording things in a politically incorrect manner. It indicates to me you are racist and don't have good intentions and don't want to be a collaborative/civil editor.
I specifically mean using the word "Jewry" and saying a fire in 1911 was "presumably started by Jews". "presumably"? Seriously? That's racist. You're adding speculation and personal opinion because you are racist against Jews. Unless it's specifically historically important and empirically TRUE, it doesn't need to be added. For example, if a group of Jewish people burned down something because of reasons and there's some sort of plaque or statue commemorating the event that a traveler might want to visit. In this case, a fire being started by Jews is important historically and the location has value to the traveler, mention away. But you "presume" Jews started a fire, with no evidence provided or mention as to why them being Jewish is historically relevant, and you also claim a museum has ulterior motives (that are quite frankly conspiracy theory level)? I'd classify your edits as vandalism. If I had seen the change in the recent changes log, I'd be reverting it and notifying the vandalism in progress page. None of that information benefits the traveler and is obviously racist. No question or excuse could be thought up to justify it as it is so blatant. I don't want to be part of a site that tolerates that kind of blatantly racist user. I'm not saying to censor with a ban, but I would hope we aren't questioning that the phrasing of some of those comments is mean spirited and racist. If it's a case of trying to draw attention to an article, still vandalism. Bring up the need for attention on the article's talk page or the pub. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support an escalation of blocks against users posting racist or intolerant language anywhere on Wikivoyage, and it is clear to me that at least some of the edits listed by User:Xsobev were racist in nature. Wikivoyage is not a platform for anybody's political opinions, and posting anti-semitic comments in articlespace is an especially extreme example of this.

Can I request that instead of instigating a block as an outcome of this discussion, that this thread be instead considered a final warning to ArticCynda, with sanctions being imposed for further racist comments. It would not be just to impose a block for actions performed before the community clarified its position on such behaviour. Otherwise, it's like changing the law and then punishing someone for something they did before it was illegal. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support ThunderingTyphoons' proposal above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's obvious is that my statement to ArticCynda did not go down well with K7L and AndreCarrotflower for different reasons. I thought my statement to him would be agreed with by sensible editors, but if editors do not agree, then my statement that he should promise not to do it again is obviously out of the question. Answer solved and done.
AndreCarrotflower to me: "[Y]ou don't have the authority to unilaterally decide this. Wikivoyage is governed by community consensus." I've been on this website enough months to know that. I am not "unilaterally deciding" anything. I am stating something to him that is reasonable and sensible, with the hope of no user blocks or bans for anyone. AndreCarrotflower, yes, you are an admin and I am not, but still none of us can unilaterally make a decision, including you. I wrongly assumed that, if ArticCynda apologized, others would be reasonable and forgive. Selfie City (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. My issue wasn't with your proposal, which I mostly agree with, but with your wording, which tries to speak for all of us rather than just yourself. "....if you apologize and make clear that you will stop making these kinds of edits, we won't block or ban you" rather than "...I would support not blocking or banning you". As for assuming others would "be reasonable and forgive", I don't think there's anything unreasonable about not giving people the benefit of the doubt that they might not have known we frown on bigotry here. "Don't be a bigot" is one of the most Captain Obvious policies imaginable. Not something people should need to be reminded. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Let me make myself clear that, if ArticCynda was a user with a history of causing problems or a user without a history at all, I wouldn't be so forgiving. But it seemed to me, until very recently, that this issue was something that could easily be resolved. I didn't think ArticCynda would so stubbornly hold to the problematic contributions he made, and I made the mistake of assuming that ArticCynda would apologize when the time came. But the opposite has happened — more and more antisemitic comments, which are on a whole new level from the terrorism warningbox, have been discovered. I only wonder when these contributions were made, which I am planning to investigate now. Selfie City (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a couple more things: 1) shouldn't this be moved to the main user ban nominations area rather than its talk page? And 2) yes, I would support a proposal that stated, "....if you apologize and make clear that you will stop making these kinds of edits, I would support not blocking or banning you". Selfie City (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it's clear that ArticCynda contributed that section, including that about the "defeat of the Jews" today, UTC time. That changes everything. It makes it clear that ArticCynda simply won't stop. I think if any more instances of this kind are contributed and discovered, a block will be necessary. Selfie City (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Also, I discovered this in Brussels/Woluwe: "The building was almost demolished by Jews who wanted to build an apartment complex at the location in 1971 — an example of Brusselization — but saved last minute and classified as a monument in 1975." And also found "Lack of funding and interference with Jews caused construction to take over 30 years" in Brussels/Centre. What's the chances this is the work of User:ArticCynda? Selfie City (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what the second one means, especially the word "with", but how could you know the race/religion of the people in comment #1? By the way, I think that was added on July 20. Here's the link showing the removal: difference. I haven't removed the other instance yet. Selfie City (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now I have, in 2 edits: difference. Selfie City (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this was ArticCynda or not, but check this out too: difference, difference, and difference. How can we know the people causing this damage were Jews, and does it really matter? Seems like antisemitism again. Selfie City (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:K7L, I really regret your take on this. It's bad enough that you blithely associate anti-Muslim and anti-Moroccan remarks by a bigot with unvarnished safety recommendations, but your support of a rank anti-Semite is a personal injury to some of us that we are not likely to forget. I would like to see you stop trying to whitewash bigotry. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that there be a ban of one day if no apology is forthcoming within a reasonable time frame and if the issues of antisemitism and racist remarks against various groups including several times in mainspace are not addressed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ThunderingTyphoons and Andre's proposal. Any more transgressions and I support a one-day block. Unfortunately, from the lack of remorse shown above this is very likely but because of ArticCynda's otherwise productive edits I would like to give him one more chance. Gizza (roam) 00:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be going a bit off-track, I think those edits could have an opposite effect to what was intended. Rather than get scared of Africans or Jews, ironically my impression was to stay away from Belgium because it sounded like there was a strong neo-Nazi presence. Something to always remember is that anyone who knows English (as a first or second language) and has internet access may be reading this site. Not just Western, straight, middle-aged, able, white men. Gizza (roam) 00:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, the Belgium and Antwerp pages probably merit a safety warning for Jewish travellers - not some Jew-hating idiot's slurs against Jewish people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In my opinion, some interesting comments have been made by others since I commented yesterday. For a start, the one addressed to K7L. I think it was sensible to see K7L's point of view (though not necessarily agreed with) before the anti-Jewish contributions were discovered. But the antisemitism changed everything, since what me and probably others thought was just a user writing "lively travel writing gone too far" and "over-the-top safety warnings" is now discovered to be the same user who considers a victory no different than murder — the murder of millions. It doesn't require politics to see ArticCynda's contributions lately have not been appropriate for the website, especially considering he/she will not apologize and/or stop writing this type of content and continually dodges the real issues.

I agree with Hobbitschuster's statement that comes immediately after the message pinged to K7L, "I propose that there be a ban of one day if no apology is forthcoming within a reasonable time frame and if the issues of antisemitism and racist remarks against various groups including several times in mainspace are not addressed." This kind of action makes sense considering how ArticCynda has been avoiding the real problem issues so far. We can clean up the Brussels articles of any antisemitism quite easily, but it seems to be that more will come unless ArticCynda addresses this issue in one of four places: his/her talk page, Talk:Brussels, Talk:Brussels/International District, or here.

Along the same lines I see a lot of sense in Gizza's comments, specifically including both of those made immediately after Hobbitschuster commented. The first of his/her comments of those two I largely agree with, and I think the second is good point as well, whether or not it is ArticCynda's real motive. But even if ArticCynda is trying to get the opposite effect with those edits, that's not really any better than plain antisemitic commentary. Whatever result is intended, the comments themselves just don't line up with Wikivoyage's principles.

Lastly, I can't say whether or not I think we should have a safety warning on the Belgium and Antwerp pages since I have never been to either of these places. It's hard to know whether ArticCynda is a typical Belgium person, which I doubt strongly, or whether he/she is one unusual individual amongst other, non-antisemitic people. Selfie City (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, though, are others okay with moving this to the main user ban nominations page? Selfie City (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see if User:ArticCynda will respond here to our invitation to apologise and change the behaviour before we do that. How about it, AC?
Let's keep discussions about the appropriateness of a warningbox to the right talk page. Speculation about ArticCynda's motives are neither here nor there; we can only go by what (s)he says and does, and the behaviour is inappropriate regardless of intent. By the way, I do appreciate your thoroughness in these comments, replying to recent points in turn.
Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I think placing ArticCynda under closer supervision, by taking him/her out of the Autopatroller user group, is in order. Can I count on other admins to help me keep an eye on his/her edits? As you may have noticed, my free time to be online has been severely limited for a while now, and can only apologise for that. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I absolutely agree, ThunderingTyphoons!. Motives aren't very important for us — what's important is what ArticCynda has actually written, which as I've stated before is not fit for the website. Removing the user from Autopatroller category also makes sense. Selfie City (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:ArticCynda: I do not think anyone has suggested, or is likely to suggest "banning anyone merely because their political opinion..."
The problem is that your edits often include things like:
"One of its [the National Museum of the Resistance] goals is to raise awareness an sensitize citizens to the dangers of undemocratic systems and Jewry, whatever their forms are, and the risk of escallation of these threats into devastating conflicts. Since 1972, the civic purpose of the museum is to continue transmission of the ideals and spirits embodied by the Resistance, as to warn young generations to the present dangers of extremism and Jewry of any kind."
This sort of thing is highly problematic in several ways.
One big one is that it represents an intrusion of personal opinion into what should be more-or-less objective text, & your claims are demonstrably completely wrong. It is simply not true that "One of its goals is to raise awareness an sensitize citizens to the dangers of ... Jewry" or that "the civic purpose of the museum is to ... warn young generations to the present dangers of ... Jewry." I checked by searching the museum site for "jewry" (not mentioned) & for "jew" which turns up twice, once in "escape lines, Jew rescue networks" & once in a brochure on Jewish history in the era. You may imagine that their purpose is somehow related to what you wrote, but that is not what most people would expect in this museum & bears no resemblance at all to their stated purpose.
Another is that, as others have said, your text is fairly obviously racist & that is not acceptable here.
Please either apologise & refrain from doing such things again or expect to be blocked. Pashley (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good research, Pashley. Even if this wasn't about politics/bigotry/discrimination/racism, it's still clear that these edits are problematic, since they are inserting phrases that are not factual by a user who will not explain them. Selfie City (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had little time over the past week, and have not been following this discussion. In trying to catch up, I am appalled by ArticCynda's edits, and by their apparent decision to escalate the conflict be adding more anti-Semitic comments. ArticCynda has been given ample opportunity to walk back these remarks, but has not bothered to do so. And the result is that a tonne of other editors' time has been consumed on this unproductive argument. Wikivoyage cannot let itself be used as a platform for anti-Semitism, racism, misogyny, Islamophobia or homophobia in the name of free speech. I support rapidly escalating blocks to stop ArticCynda's intentionally disruptive behaviour. Ground Zero (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, User:SelfieCity discovered and linked to a few more edits (see above). I checked in the WV history and they were all added by User:ArticCynda:
  • "The building was almost demolished by Jews who wanted to build an apartment complex " (Special:Diff/3545214)
  • "Lack of funding and interference with Jews caused construction to take over 30 years" (Special:Diff/3545222)
  • "The palace was completely burned down by Jews in 1820, but the Dutch king liberated the funding to rebuild it in 1822. [...] "In 1883 the Jews attacked again however, burning down the building a second time: [...]" (Special:Diff/3548081)
  • "Until its destruction by Jews in 2006, the museum operated the last authentic mute cinema room in the world." (Special:Diff/3548097)
As User:Pashley (and I in Talk:Brussels/International District) pointed out, the additional problem to the discriminatory edits, is the false information that User:ArticCynda keeps inserting into WV. As if discrimination is not enough of a reason, false information is clearly against Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first. I can no longer trust any of User:ArticCynda's edits. That trust might be won back in a long process. The first steps are an apology, a clear statement that such edits won't happen anymore, and to pro-actively revert all instances of discrimination or false information.
I gave at least one clear warning in this comment before User:ArticCynda made another discriminatory edit ("After the Second World War and the defeat of the Jews, [...]."; Special:Diff/3576751). Together with her/his continuous refusal to provide an explanation or to participate in this discussion (while continuing to edit WV elsewhere), make it - in my opinion - unnecessary to provide yet another warning. Implementing an initial block as proposed in the beginning is more than justified; removing User:ArticCynda from the Wikivoyage:Autopatrollers user group should be done without any further hesitation. Xsobev (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this I support a one day ban without further delay. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The window for offering an apology and it seeming genuine and heartfelt is certainly closing. What do we do if, as seems clear, nothing is forthcoming? User blocks shouldn't be used to force out a grudging apology, but at the same time, I can't imagine many people have much trust or confidence in an unrepentant AC carrying on as if nothing has happened. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Although the current climate of threats is by no means productive for a dialogue, I have provided clarifications on my point of view, to whoever it may concern. Of course, an open minded attitude is a requirement to engage in a discussion, which unfortunately seems no longer present among certain editors. ArticCynda (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The important clarification I see here is ArcticCynda's statement "I do not endorse racism, antisemitism, or any other type of unjustified discrimination." I had not seen a renunciation of anti-Semitism before, so this is encouraging. I would still like to see a response to the claims that ArcticCynda added false information. I am still concerned about ArcticCynda continuing to add inflammatory language about Jews while this discussion had been underway. It seems that they are looking to stir up trouble. Accusing anyone who disagrees with them as not being opened-minded is a very lazy way of dealing with this situation. The Wikivoyage community has been very indulgent of ArcticCynda because of their previous contributions. A new editor would have been blocked long ago for this behaviour. We need some solid commitments from ArticCynda not to engage in this sort of behaviour again. Ground Zero (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except ArticCynda hasn't offered anything except empty words. He has not said why he keeps saying "Jews did this bad thing, Jews did that bad thing" without - as it would appear - a shred of evidence or relevance. You can get a meaningless statement denouncing antisemitism out of pretty much anybody these days. Even people who are clearly antisemitic. I don't want to get all political, but if you start saying "accusations of antisemitism against me are all a huge conspiracy" then that sounds to me very fishy... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but this is a travel guide, so a contributor's beliefs about Jews or anyone else are not relevant until they start adding anti-Semitic comments, as ArcticCynda has. Until AC started doing so, their contributions were welcome. If AC makes a commitment to stop adding anything about Jews and Muslims, and to not knowingly add any more false information, I think we could move on, but we would have to watch their contributions very carefully, because of this past behaviour. Or do you think we should just block AC altogether? I'm keeping an open mind on this question. Ground Zero (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ArticCynda's most recent edits still play the victim card. Everyone is apparently censoring him, threatening him, making unilateral decisions on the Brussels district pages, forcing him to answer questions, spreading propaganda against him, while he is innocent. And we should only seek to resolve any disagreement with the wording by using the edit button. The spin is remarkable. 10-15 active members of the Wikivoyage community (more than half of the active members on the site) have been sucked into this massive time sink. This is getting ridiculous. I'm definitely open to a block right now though we can also wait until/if AC makes another inflammatory edit on the mainspace. Gizza (roam) 13:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArticCynda has just posted in his own talk page, in response to Hobbitschuster:

""The Jews were defeated by the end of the Second World War"" — is not an antisemitist comment because their retreat to Israel in 1948 is a fact."

For me, this is misinformation, distortion of historic facts, a huge violation of our Be fair policy, and VERY unacceptable. Ibaman (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Ibaman but I cannot find the comment you allude to. Where is it? Can you link to the diff? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On AC's talk page, the 5th last comment, timestamped "12:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)." --ϒpsilon (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
here, sorry for not having made it available sooner. And, to be unambiguous, I fully support the escalation of blocks against users posting bigoted, racist or intolerant language anywhere on Wikivoyage, and specially when they are not sorry and keep on playing the victims of censorship. Ibaman (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Given that AC has continued making inflammatory comments while this discussion is ongoing, and shows no sign of understanding the problem, I don't think that temporary blocks will achieve anything. Because AC's commrnts about various groups have been repeatedly offensive and they don't seem to understand why, I think that AC should be blocked until they agree to the following conditions:

  1. not to make any comment about Jews, Muslims, Africans or a member of any national groups, either specifically or by implication, and
  2. not to add false information knowingly.

Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that one. Our general policy to use escalating blocks, and think that ought to be used. I think, however, we should perhaps go for a one week block to start instead of a one-day block, reflecting my recent statement at Talk:Brussels/Woluwe: "[L]ike all of ArticCynda's edits about antisemitism, etc. — they're almost like the work of some vandals: they add things that can't be proven and have no significance or relevance to the rest of the article. If such action is continued and the contributor refuses to explain his/her actions, that's definitely like the work of a vandal. And we block vandals immediately." Selfie City (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually about to write much the same thing as Ground Zero. When I agreed with ThunderingTyphoons' proposal above, I was holding out hope that perhaps this was all somehow a big misunderstanding, or that ultimately ArticCynda would indeed apologize and address in his/her behavior the concerns expressed in this thread. Of course, not only has it become clear that none of that is the case, but the behavior has continued unabated even as the discussion has been ongoing, and excavations into ArticCynda's contribution history have unearthed still more instances of the same. So my question becomes, why are we not now talking about an indefinite ban? I think that if indefbans are uncontroversial for, let's say, the Fuerdai vandal, who has no history of productive contributions and who vandalizes the site in a way that's childish and annoying but not racist, we surely ought to do so in the case of a user who commits full-blown acts of hate speech, regardless whether or not there are also some valuable contributions mixed in too. And unlike GZ, I'm of the opinion that we're past the point where a belated apology would make much difference or a belated promise not to make bigoted edits would hold much water. The question now has become do we want this kind of editor in our community, rather than do we want these kinds of edits on our site. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the more time passes, the less likely an apology seems. Selfie City (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The more time passes, the less likely an apology seems" but also the more the behavior continues, the less an apology would mean even if we were to get one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Autopatroller status

Several people have proposed this. Autopatroller status is given to users who have established a record of dependable edits that are accurate and conform with Wikivoyage policy. Is there anyone who would like to argue in favor of ArticCynda retaining Autopatroller status, given his series of inaccurate edits that are in bad faith and do not conform to Wikivoyage policies? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I removed AC from the autopatroller group yesterday. I didn't think it needed a discussion. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support this measure. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never requested to be given any status, so I do not object against being removed from that group. ArticCynda (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaman has gone ahead and blocked ArticCynda

I just saw that User:Ibaman has gone ahead and blocked ArticCynda. I think this is unfortunate as the consensus for some sort of block seemed to be emerging but not there yet and a premature block might give rise to conspiracy theories of censorship and whatnot which I do not wish to give any ground to... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fellow Wikivoyagers, call me harsh if you will, but this user reminds me of Turbo8000 who was keen on forcing "his" districtification scheme of Lima down our throats. He won't apologize and lacks any self-criticism. There are limits to this kind of shenanigans. Ibaman (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a strong consensus for ablock of some sort. Allowing ArcticCynda to continue to edit articles at this point signalled that we were not serious about stopping the offensive comments. I think that had to end. The questions now are whether it should only be temporary (and I don't agree with that), and whether we would accept AC back under the sort of conditions I've proposed. I doubt that AC would accept them, but if they would, we could discuss lifting the block. Ground Zero (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ground Zero, I understand your consideration, but I think a decision could have been taken quickly instead of blocking indefinitely, which there wasn't consensus for. By indefinitely blocking a user, we will have soon totally destroyed any hope of this user ever making any edits, whether productive or not. I wish to see at least this block moved back to one week, if not removed completely, and we make a decision on this with a time set — perhaps agree to make a decision in two hours. That seems more reasonable, since I really don't want to see ArticCynda leave WV if we can help it (although I doubt this can be resolved at this point), but we should give ArticCynda a chance still to apologize. It's not so much about banning, but more about the impression that a ban gives on the user who is banner. Selfie City (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since two people have voiced objections, I have reduced the block to three days to give us time to decide. But I think we have to extend if we don't get any cooperation from ArticCynda.
There is a difference between an indefinite block and a permanent one. I support an indefinite block while giving AC the opportunity to consider whether they would be interested in continuing to edit under the community's conditions. If so, the block would be lifted. Ground Zero (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ground Zero, thanks for changing the block to three days. I think we should now try to get this discussed as quickly as possible, by as many contributors as possible, with the hope of getting this resolved by midnight UTC at the latest. I would support a two-week block, if possible, with the current situation, but I think if after three days there are no changes to the situation, we should expand the block to three months or indefinitely. (I wrote this comment without knowing Ground Zero was making the above comment.) Selfie City (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, I support an indefinite block and am not particularly inclined to change my mind about that in the event of any apology or agreement to conditions. I think bigots ought to be unwelcome at Wikivoyage regardless of whether they use Wikivoyage as a venue for their bigotry. It's a philosophy that's antithetical to the wiki mindset, and we ought to take the strongest stand possible here.-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(edit conflict) So we can quickly resolve this, I'm going to notify several other admins/users about how things are going: @Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!, K7L, Hobbitschuster: @Wrh2, DaGizza, Mx. Granger, Xsobev:@Traveler100: Most of these users have been involved in this discussion, with the exception of Wrh2, who would be an important voice in the situation and has increased contributing recently. Sorry if I cluttered anyone's mailboxes, but this is important and needs to be solved as soon as possible. Selfie City (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are all going to get off-topic with the bigotry issue if we stay on it for too long: the main issue is ArticCynda's edits, which have been problematic in many ways besides bigotry. Selfie City (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing off-topic about the bigotry issue. The bigotry is the main issue, even if there are other secondary ones. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is some hope in the sense that it doesn't seem ArticCynda made any problematic edits today, and perhaps those will no longer take place if we don't do a block after three days, but from now on we cannot trust this user. So I still think a two-week block seems reasonable, and if nothing changes after three days we extend to either one month, three months, or indefinitely. Chances are that we will block indefinitely in the end anyway, but at least this way we give ArticCynda another chance. This a user who has been very productive in the past (this was their work), so I really don't want to see them go if we can help it. Selfie City (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were many unacceptable edits and it seems AC tried us in how long playing ignorant could bear. Also that game or tactic was unacceptable, and I even do not know if doing it out of true ignorance is any better. I have no hope any further warnings or short blocks changes the attitudes of the user, but it might be the behaviour is caused by some personal crisis. If so, I suppose the user could return at a later time, if the user sincerely regrets, apologising or not. The time span should be weeks at shortest, if we are ready to forgive what happened. I have no idea whether the edits reflect true opinions or entirely are about playing games. --LPfi (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to see ArcticCynda continue as a constructive editor by agreeing to conditions. It would be unfortunate to lose them as an editor, but they cannot continue in the current vein. Ground Zero (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ground Zero, I agree, but at the same time I think a long-term ban will probably turn away User:ArticCynda completely. I think a ban of two weeks (or maybe a month, even) to start with seems reasonable. Selfie City (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This block is well justified, given that the user in question continues to make terrible posts, such as his "explanation" that the Jews were "defeated" in World War II, as shown by their "retreat" to Israel. If any of you doesn't realize that calling civilians running for their lives a "retreat", as if they were an army is horrible Jew-hating bullshit (and few made it to Palestine, with many having run to France, the Netherlands and other countries that were in turn occupied by the Nazis), please wake up. I'm really sick of this individual's bullshit, and I've been quite restrained in not using expletives in any of my remarks to or about him (and no, "bullshit" is not an expletive; an expletive would be "go fuck yourself" or something similar). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
”...I think a long-term ban will probably turn away User:ArticCynda completely.” SelfieCity, why do you insist on considering that to be a negative outcome? As I said, bigots should not feel welcome at Wikivoyage, regardless of whether they are using Wikivoyage to spread their bigotry. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AC shouldn't be able to come back without a commitment to stop the abusive behaviour. Ground Zero (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AC shouldn't be able to come back, full stop. Even if we unblock him/her and s/he never makes another bigoted edit again, the fact remains that underneath it all, s/he is still a bigot. There should be no room for bigots in our community. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ground Zero's idea for an indefinite ban, with the possibility of ArticCynda being allowed back if he sees the error of his ways and sincerely apologises, is the right move in my opinion. AndreCarrotflower - you seem to hold the view that "once a bigot, always a bigot". I have first hand experience that that is not always true, and I hold out hope that anyone can change under the right circumstances.
But for now, the fact remains that the present ArticCynda remains oblivious and uncaring of the hurt he has caused some of our editors, and cannot or will not admit that there is a serious problem with his behaviour, nor make any steps towards changing. So in the short to medium term, there is no hope for his edits being free of offensive content, therefore he and his edits are not welcome until such a time when he is ready to grow. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it likely that AC might come back under a different name. If they do, I think we should not stop that until and unless they start the bigoted and jew-baiting crap again. This whole experience reinforces my conviction that talking to antisemites is a waste of time... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that would be W:Block evasion, which is grounds for immediate indefblock. Why would we make an exception for this headcase, of all people? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AC was still making passive-aggressive comments til the very end. Zero evidence of any change in behaviour or attitude. Good riddance. Gizza (roam) 22:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be making a witch-hunt for his potential return and assume him under every rock that is interested in Brussels. We should however leave a lot less tolerance for bigotry of any kind in the future... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now I must say I'm glad about how swiftly the community is able to act whenever such people show their true colors, even users that add some content of quality, as was this case. I"m also thankful for the consensus quickly achieved supporting the block. The guideline must always be the creation and maintenance of an awesome online travel guide. Ibaman (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also support an indefinite block. The user seems unable or unwilling to acknowledge the problem, instead making evasive statements or unconvincing denials. So I don't really see another way forward. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

So that we know where we stand when the 3-day block ends, it seems that all of the contributors to the discussion (except Selfie City and perhaps Hobbitschuster) support an indefinite block (Mx. Granger, DaGizza, AndreCarrotflower, ThunderingTyphoons, Ikan Kekek, LPfi, Ibaman, Ground Zero). Please correct me if I have misread anyone's comments. If AC decides to apply to have the block withdrawn, we can discuss whether or not we are willing to do so. Ground Zero (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, considering that he continues to worsen things with his "explanations" and self-justifications, I do now support an indefinite ban. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I support an indefinite block. AC is still able to communicate on their talk page. There is still the opportunity to apologise, drop the accusations of a witch-hunt, admit those edits do not align with Wikivoyage goals and policies at all, promise to not add any more disgraceful, bigoted content onto articles and not make any trolling comments towards others on talk pages. Until all of this happens (no more compromises or playing around), I would support keeping the indefinite ban. Gizza (roam) 02:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Ibaman for implementing the initial block, and thanks User:Ground Zero for the summary. Implementing the initial block was well justified, and the community was very patient with User:ArticCynda. Many people spend a lot of their time on this whole issue, and were personally affected by his/her behaviour or statements. An indefinite block gives everyone a rest, and - without a deadline - time to analyse the situation, and time to see whether User:ArticCynda did any more damage to WV in her/his previous edits. Through his/her talk page User:ArticCynda still has a way to communicate with everyone else or vice versa - if there is a desire to do that. So, yes, I support an indefinite block. Xsobev (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think any attempt to use the talk page right now would be very counterproductive. I suggest also the possibility to edit the talk page is removed for at least a couple of weeks, perhaps a few months. Then there might be a chance of change in attitude, not only a chance to continue this, which besides the other problems would make a return more difficult. --LPfi (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, do you mean AC's ability to edit his own talk page should be curtailed, or that more generally the page should be protected from all edits?
I personally don't like cutting off all means of communication, unless he starts spamming the talk page with further racist content, which seems unlikely. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Not to be too alarmist, because he hasn't been back online, but AC is now unblocked and we haven't reached a formal decision on what to do next. Looking back at the comments, it seems the consensus is to indefblock. Can I just confirm, in as few words as feasible, that that is indeed the wish of the community? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a broad consensus to ban me from Wikivoyage indefinitely, then I accept that verdict. But although I respect the opinions above, in my opinion, the group of editors making the decision here is very small in comparison to the size of the English Wikivoyage community. A handful of people agreeing feels hardly like a community consensus, given the extreme severity of the sentence being considered.
Hobbitschuster, I appreciate your confidence in my resilience, but after being confronted with my work being insulted for vandalism numerous times, I will need some time to decide wether or not I want to continue contributing. As mentioned by Andree.sk I have always aimed to write travel guides with as goal to get them to be stars (like Kraainem), and I think anyone here would feel insulted if their hard work was called "vandalism". And although I do know many editors appreciate my contributions, the accusations nonetheless hurt on a personal level. ArticCynda (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK AC never spammed, so I don't see why the rush. Anywho, if after this "mega-trial" (s)he is still willing to contribute, apparently under much closer supervision, why not? He surely is aware there won't be a 2nd pardon. Andree.sk (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because he has already injured people here enough. He hasn't asked for my forgiveness, and I don't give it to him. He continued trying to justify his bigotry and give "nopologies" and fake pleas of himself being victimized while the decision was being made and during his block. I strongly suggest we indefblock him and wish him happy trails. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArticCynda you know that "vandalism" wasn't the accusation leveled at you, at least not isolated from the bigotry you have engaged in. Actually the "vandalism" accusation if it was ever there was something to interpret your obviously bigoted stuff you inserted into mainspace as somehow "not bigotry" but merely something done for some other purpose. But it is now clear that you are unwilling to distance yourself from or explain your antisemitic edits and given that you have been given repeated chances to do so and have instead played the victim, well, you brought this upon yourself. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AC's edits were not quite vandalism. That's technically inaccurate. I think Ibaman called the edits vandalism in the indef block edit summary. Saying the user made repeated bigoted edits including many not related to travel would have been more accurate. Anyway, AC had an opportunity in the above message to apologise sincerely but didn't. AC just had to say something along the lines of "in the future I will not insert racist and other discriminatory content into my edits" and I would have reconsidered my stance because that would've shown a big change in attitude, even if the comment deep down wasn't heartfelt and he ended up not sticking to his promise. But even that didn't happen. I'm afraid he just doesn't get it if he thinks the only issue is a difference in political opinion. Still support an indef block. Gizza (roam) 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution: I have implemented the indefinite ban. This has been discussed at great length by a many of the most frequent contributors to Wikivoyage. Some are eager to see this ban implemented, others support it with regret that an otherwise effective contributor would decide to behave in this way, but it seems that there is a strong consensus to implement an indefinite ban. I am sure that several of us will monitor ArcticCynda's talk page in the event that he decides later to try to re-engage with Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block his posting privileges on his talk page

Does anyone object to blocking him from being able to post to his talk page? Look at this: He thinks he can dictate to me. Also look here, where he alleges hypocrisy by some editors. This is just more time-wasting. Let's end this once and for all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the entries stay just criticism and do not go to profanities and racist remarks, I see no reason to block. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I don’t like the idea of banning non vandals from editing their own talk page, I support a talk page ban on this user. They will only continue to disrupt. They’re continuing to support everything I do because they are trying to divide and conquer the Wikivoyage community. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can wait and see if he does this kind of thing again. If he posts another comment in the same vein, we can then block his talk page. I understand it's a very emotive issue because specific groups have been targeted by this user's bigotry, but I also believe in second chances. I have changed a number of my political opinions over time simply from interacting with different people and being exposed to different points of view, and there are cases of even KKK members being reformed and becoming advocates for black people's rights, so I'd personally prefer to completely slam the door shut only as a last resort. The dog2 (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward's what The dog2 said and think we give can AC one more chance until blocking his privileges on the talk page. The damage he can inflict is limited now. He can't quite go on a vandalism spree like LibMod. But yes one more transgression and any admin can plunge forward and remove his privileges on sight which will stop any future time wasting. Gizza (roam) 05:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've been giving him second chances for two months now. He is clearly not interested in playing nicely (and by that I mean apologizing specifically for anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim comments). He continues to dodge, and to offer insincere denials. Ground Zero (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this homophobic act of vandalism, I have blocked this user for one day to prevent further harm inflicted on Wikivoyage.

However, I think it's time we discussed a much longer block for this guy. He's not getting any better, in fact it's the opposite of that. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, forget the above, this should be an indefban. Look at the contributions. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Libertarianmoderate was previously blocked for three days, so per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks his second block should last two weeks. I've done that provisionally, but ultimately I agree with ThunderingTyphoons! that an indefban is warranted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Two of the three sockpuppet accounts he has acknowledged (User:Zayn Hussein and User:SmokinTourist909) have already been indefbanned, but User:LibMod has not. I hope no one minds that I took the liberty of indefbanning it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for fixing that. I was focused on stopping and undoing the vandalism. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, an indefban is appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes definitely should be indefbanned. Libmod became more immature and bigoted day by day. I also won't oppose deleting many of the empty stub articles created by Libmod on war zones, pointless redirects and tiny hamlets, which other people had to convert to outlines since he was too lazy to learn the rules here. Gizza (roam) 00:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, a notice should be placed on the nominated User's Talk page, per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban. Nurg (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indef bans all around, I say. Ground Zero (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The emerging consensus here is pretty clear and I see no reason to drag this out for much longer, so anyone who does not think LM ought to be indefbanned, please do so within a day or two (and you had better lay out a pretty damn convincing case). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious. He's gone off the deep end, which he was pretty close to for a while. Indefban. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They voluntarily retired, then came out of a short retirement to vandalise the site, which seems like a voluntary burning of the bridges. Ban indefinitely. Nurg (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poor sod misspelt "Wikitravel" --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two week ban? It's obvious an indefinite ban is needed here — just look at his contributions list. We're just wasting our time with him by doing 2-week bans. He's obviously gone crazy with this; he's gotten to dislike WV so much that he's turned against it, creating pages, redirects, etc., that he knows are going to cause problems. I think from now on we ought to not give him too much attention, since he's trying to get attention now, like most other vandals. By banning him indefinitely — probably including his talk page — we don't have to waste our time with him anymore. We don't need to worry about whether or not it's political or offensive, we can just ban; he's obviously not going to help us anymore. (Whether he ever helped us is definitely in doubt.) Let's not let ourselves debate with each other because some insane user is causing problems. This ought to be enough to indefinitely ban. Let's just hurry up with this and be done with him, hopefully forever, so we get on with ordinary contributing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC) --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two week ban is just procedural. We don't indefban previously "good" (a term here used loosely) users without any discussion, that is contrary to the spirit of wikis. As it is, the indefban is going to happen, unless someone speaks up in the next few hours. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but LM has dominated our lives for too long. He's obviously a vandal now, from moving pages to a "warning" about Wikivoyage. I get the impression he caused problems on Wikitravel and was thrown off the website, probably for good reason. That's why he did the "WT Satan" vandalism when he got here. Now he's thrown off here (unless he tries to create more sockpuppet accounts) he'll find some other wiki where he can cause problems. I don't really care too much about his latest acts of vandalism, like I wouldn't care about what edits a vandal were making — it's just obvious they're vandals. So let's indefinitely ban by the end of August 30 UTC. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your sentiment, SelfieCity, but keep in mind that not everyone checks in to Wikivoyage every day, and there are some who might not have seen this discussion yet. I doubt that any convincing argument against an indefban will be made, but it's plausible enough that keeping this discussion open for another day or two is appropriate. Even if someone does argue in favor of giving LM another chance and it turns into a big debate, it will still probably be resolved before his current two-week block runs out. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, sure. We've got 2 weeks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush, but I'd be fine with an indefinite block. Inserting factually untrue statements like Obama being a Muslim most certainly qualifies as vandalism, and as with AC's case, WV should have a zero tolerance policy for any sort of bigotry. The dog2 (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worse. He actually seemed to believe Obama to be a Muslim. The other stuff was clearly vandalism though. Ground Zero (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It doesn't look like anyone's going to come out of the woodwork to plead for clemency on LM's behalf, so I went ahead and made the ban permanent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very obviously a sockpuppet. If anyone objects to blocking this username and deleting the bunch of useless articles about little towns in the Midwest with nothing much to do, speak up now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has he or she done anything that is clearly actual vandalism? If not, I'd say give him/her the benefit of the doubt. Pashley (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Walks like a duck and is quacking very loudly, but if that's what you'd like to do, fine. I don't think the articles this user is creating are valuable, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How are the articles I wrote useless? Alphaomegaone (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After all, it's not like I wrote about a random open field. Alphaomegaone (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not even done writing them. How about this? You give me 48 hours (starting Thursday morning) to finish them, or I'll redirect them to Brown County (SD) myself. Alphaomegaone (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a LibMod sockpuppet and banned as such, meritless arguments for clemency notwithstanding; pcv also deleted. Ikan Kekek - you're best off in the future just banning these socks on sight; mentioning them here only invites unnecessary complications. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ban on sight when it's obvious. His edits overall were still a net negative (changing the breadcrumb trail of many articles to Rojava without consensus and pretending to be new and clueless, and ending up wasting everyone's time. Gizza (roam) 23:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It’s a bit like that Conserve user who’s now in this pages archive. Obviously not a sane individual who should have been banned without discussion, but someone had to disagree just to disagree, it seems. And yes, I agree here that we should ban Alphaomegaone if they are an LM sockpuppet. We may as well just block without discussion, or else LM’s sockpuppets might overwhelm us. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SelfieCity put it best about a month ago on Libertarianmoderate's original talk page, but just to reiterate and expand: this is above all someone who craves to be the centre of attention; it doesn't matter whether that attention is positive or negative. So I say, let's not give him any. Block on sight and repeat until he goes away. They all do eventually. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. His modus operandi had always been to create stub articles then to move on to other articles. His claim that he will finish them within 48 hours is not credible. And pretending to a new user to avoid a block? That's a paddlin' offence. Ground Zero (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He wants to believe he’s at the center of this travel wiki. (No offense to this wiki, but why he’d see that as important is a good question.) Like most vandals, he wants attention and also makes a lot of emotionally based decisions — like the things he posted on the Wikitravel page, vandalism, page moving, suggestions in the Pub, etc. To summarize, I think it’s a combination of these things: emotions controlling him and wanting attention, that make him incompatible with this wiki and probably other wikis too. But now we understand what he’s doing, probably best just to block and not discuss these things. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see he or she has been permanently blocked & am still not sure I agree, though I will not remove the consensus block.
Most new users (& perhaps especially the enthusiastic ones) need a bit of advice from more experienced folk — see User_talk:Pashley/Archive#Passes or User_talk:AndreCarrotflower/2011_and_2012#It_begins... for examples — before they start getting most things right. There are limits & the really clueless ones should be blocked, but I'd say we should give them the benefit of the doubt when any exists; see Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?#How_to_not_bite_a_newbie for one of several discussions.
I also see that all the articles he or she created have been deleted. Granted, most were useless but why not redirect in accordance with Wikivoyage:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting? In a few cases, like w:Crazy Horse Memorial, why not keep it? Pashley (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley, I think there was a consensus that this user was a sock of LibertarianModerate, an editor who was treated quite carefully in the hope that he would become a useful contributor, but who seemed fairly resistant to the advice that was being given. Ground Zero (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fine line between biting a well-intentioned newbie and acknowledging obvious bad faith by a user who has shown plenty of it in the past, and the LibMod case is way, way over that line. There's absolutely nothing wrong with admins not following or weighing in on every single incident that happens on this site, but I would ask that any admins who are unfamiliar with LibMod's history on Wikivoyage, and who are unwilling to familiarize themselves with it retrospectively through the relevant entries in the userban archive, refrain from making uninformed and obstructionist comments toward those admins who have. Conversely, if said admins have been following this case, then the only reasonable conclusion I can think of is that their attitude toward user blocks is a relic from the bygone history of this site when we were constrained by Evan's naive utopian fantasy that all problem users can be reasoned with and made into productive contributors and userbans are almost never necessary. In that case, I would ask that they be respectful of the community's more recent consensus that userbans are to be deployed in a wider range of circumstances. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no coming back for LibMod. His last days on his original account (see Special:Contributions/Libertarianmoderate) were absolutely vile. I think the Wikivoyage community has erred on the side of good faith and has been very patient with the likes of AC and LM, to no avail. Gizza (roam) 22:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User contributions. This one was so obvious and already posted something racist, so blocked for 1 month. The block is probably too short. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it’s the other edits that deserve our attention. Removing warning boxes in Middle East war zones — sounds like LM using an IP address as a sockpuppet to me. I’m not sure if, just because someone doesn’t like Crazy Horse, we can say they are a racist — unless their comment had more than one meaning. But the general point is clear that the IP address should be blocked for at least a month, if not three. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does "society" mean to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The world around, I guess. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So rethink the linked comment in light of that, but this probably isn't the place to discuss it further. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user refuses to act reasonably and argues over minor edits to high-profile articles. For example, at User talk:Ikan Kekek#Relevancy the user became increasingly angry over a minor edit and then became even more so at Talk:Asia. They accuse other users when it's not their fault, and, unfortunately, they've taken it too far. See also Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#Problem user. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support an indefban as per my comments in the discussion linked above. Gizza (roam) 03:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TC has also accused Ikan Kekek and SelfieCity of being vandals here Gizza (roam) 03:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning this. I have informed Ikan Kekek about this on his talk page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The procedure at Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks should be followed in this case, with the caveat that reforming the problem editor into a productive contributor (the stated goal of the escalating user block procedure) is almost certainly not going to happen, and the only probable outcomes are that the problem user is indefbanned or that s/he gets frustrated and leaves of his/her own accord. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would a three-day block be the best choice now, then? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so. Personally, I'm reluctant to immediately indefban anyone except obvious vandals. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it now --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that a 3-day block is unlikely to have much effect. I'd propose that if the user either evades the block or continues behaving the same way after the 3-day block elapses, we should ban the user permanently right away. Anything else is wasting time, IMO, given the attitude and behavior already repeatedly manifested by this user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the same, I'm concerned about the possibility of the pendulum swinging too far in the direction of a heavy-handed approach vis-à-vis vandals and other bad-faith editors, which is as problematic in its own way as handling them with kid gloves, as we did in the early days of the site. I share your pessimism about this user in particular, and I certainly don't think we should relent on the current approach to obvious vandals, but in general I think following the escalating user ban procedure by the book is a good way to avoid instant permabans becoming an entrenched habit that might one day be used against an editor that is reformable. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but at the very first sign of bad behavior, this user needs to get a longer block. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have been following on Wikivoyage and Wikipedia and the user has made no edits since December 5. Hopefully, no more action is needed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ban editing userspace pages?

(edit conflict) Considering how this user has been, this might be a good idea in this case. We've done this before, and I think this is a good example of a time when we should ban editing userspace so further disruptions do not occur from the user in question. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: you are proposing that users not be allowed to edit user pages other than their own, correct? (And presumably this ban would not extend to others' user talk pages?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is this: if the user was banned, that they not be permitted to edit their own Wikivoyage userspace. However, your above comment says that a user ban should not be done yet, so that would make this section irrelevant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would support this only in the case of vandals indefbanned on sight - not editors blocked for a finite amount of time, nor those who were indefbanned as the final stage of the escalating user ban procedure. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is fairly significant policy change - and should be proposed on the appropriate policy page - not here. --Inas (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inas, that's not what I mean. I didn't say every vandal who is blocked should not be able to edit their talk page, just that in this case, that this user should not be allowed to edit their own user talk page and their user page. Only this user. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that would mean changing the policy in general. Because it's not allowed under the current policy. --Inas (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not disallowed under the current policy, either, and the consensus that the Fuerdai and BTCentralPlus vandals, and LibMod, should be denied access to their own user talk pages (note: this consensus predates our decision to avoid talking in detail about vandalism in publicly accessible fora, thus w:WP:BEANS doesn't apply to this statement) in practice covers most of the vandalism we see anymore. So this isn't as huge a sea change in policy as you make it out to be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask that you stop referencing policies on Wikipedia. We're a different place here, and those policies and essays don't always apply. And it doesn't matter whether it's a sea-change in policy or a small change - it should still be discussed on the policy page. --Inas (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
w:WP:DENY and w:WP:BEANS explicitly state that they are not policies on Wikipedia or anywhere else, but instead are general guidelines that are applicable to any wiki, and they've guided our approach to the latest vandalism outbreak for the past several months without controversy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inas, please check the inbox of whatever email account is connected to your Wikivoyage account. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I write a WV policy and say it applies to all wikis? Please.. By all means be guided by whatever you like, but refer me to local policies and consensus. --Inas (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing for giving maximum visibility to vandals, which is what they want? I'm confused. If it's really important to do so, let's have a discussion here. Who's in favor of denying recognition to vandals and not openly discussing ways to combat them on pages they can read? Say "Aye". Those opposed, say "No". I say "Aye". And those are summaries of the guidelines linked by Andre, wouldn't you agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, when I say I'm confused, I mean that literally. Inas, I think you would know that I respect you a lot and appreciate all your work and considered thinking, so I just really don't understand what the problem is except that things were decided quickly while you weren't around. But what's your substantive objection to the outcome?) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent]
I agree with Inas that WP policies should not be used here, and the fact that the linked pages are not policies doesn't make linking them more relevant. They may be useful, but the link should go from a local page giving context ("there is a discussion on the topic on wp:x; most points raised are relevant also here") or as a plain See also. Having that local page will not give more visibility to vandals than linking the WP policy.

I also think this kind of policy change should be documented. It could be mentioned on a page on revision deletion. Vandals must not be able to force us to use hidden policies. More detailed discussion and guidelines on practical matters can still be kept in admins-only fora.

--LPfi (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP policies and guidelines are absolutely relevant to our discussions. WP is a bigger community with a longer history and better developed policies and guidelines than WV. We should absolutely use WP policies as a guide for our policy and guideline development. I'm not saying that we have to follow them, or that we shouldn't develop policies and guidelines that are better suited to WV. I am saying that where we don't have our own policies, we should look to WP policies and guidelines as a starting point, rather than starting from scratch. No need to reinvent the wheel if the WP community has already invented a pretty good one that we can adapt to our own needs. Ground Zero (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree that WP can guide us. Bigger, more experienced, etc. In this case, I think we've grabbed a WP policy without examining if it is suitable. And I think we're being selective in applying it in a way it isn't applied on WP. And I strongly totally disagree with a private "admins only" forum for attacking vandalism. For a start, vandalism is everyone's battle - not just admins. And there aren't any admin only derived policies here. And as to Ikan Kekek's point that we should object to the method as long as the outcome is good. Well, I think the method is equally important. --Inas (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we share information on the details of vandalism filters publicly, and therefore with the vandals, we might as well stop using vandalism filters and delete them all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that. I don't think most vandals go through all the filters deciding how they should vandalise. But even if I accept that view, its quite possible and necessary to keep discussions open and not have an admin-only forum and still have individual filters not exposed. I'm acutely aware of how previous episodes have utilised this openness to the disadvantage of the site. And my concern is more with the balance swinging too far the other way, and admins making decisions behind virtual closed doors. --Inas (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
w:WP:DENY has already been adapted into a formal guideline for Wikivoyage use. Your objections are duly noted, but consensus is not unanimity, and it's time to let this issue go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations/Archive_2017-2018&oldid=4924216"