Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive 2019-2022

< 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

Not a vandal, at least not in the traditional sense - more a case study as to why w:WP:CIR needs a local analogue. Take a look at his contribution history and you'll see what I mean. I'm not sure a userban is the right answer, but I'm puzzled as to what to do about this user, and I don't know of a better place to address concerns like this. Please advise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the writing style:
I may be imagining things here, but I feel this is worth pointing out. I am taking the stance here that Telstra does not follow under our general vandal umbrella and therefore does not fit under Wikivoyage:Deny recognition. His motives seem to be different. That is why I am quoting him freely.
However, the IP used by Cactusflies matches the location of that user's contribution history, which points against vandalism — or messing around with the IP location. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And surprise, surprise! On Special:RecentChanges, Telstra has returned. Interesting timing? I think so. It's unlikely, but possible. I vote for a three-day ban on Cactusflies. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The post on Selfie's talk page is reminiscent of posts left on Traveler100's user page in 2016 by a certain User:DumfriesNative, who was also suspected of being the Telstra guy and subsequently banned. While I feel sorry for anyone in mental distress, and can personally testify that editing Wikivoyage can be therapeutic when facing down a mental illness, that should not come at the expense of the travel guide.
It may be way too late for this in other people's views, but now this person is talking again, and asking for us to work with him, could we try once more to do as he asks, and help him work with us rather than ban him on sight? That being on the condition that he continues communicating and sticks to using one account, rather than the usual dozens of burner accounts and IP addresses. I know the previous stack of evidence suggests he will revert to type, but what harm can it do to give him a chance? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Cactusflies22. We'll see what happens.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind giving Telstra another chance if they are trying to engage and learn. We gave more chances to a couple of out-and-out racist vandals last year. If it doesn't work out, we'll go back to our old policy. Gizza (roam) 03:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TT, thanks for what you have done. You have gotten him to respond, which probably rules him out as Telstra, unless Telstra operates with different faces at different times. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you indeed TT, and the fact that the user has responded and seems willing to accept counsel is a good sign. But let's remember that simply not being Telstra, or not being a vandal, is not enough. This user's behavior has been very strange, and we will need to monitor his edits closely to ensure that he has the ability to be a meaningful contributor to our site. Again, see w:Wikipedia:Competence is required to get a sense of what I mean (and by adding that link I'm aware that I'm risking another kerfuffle about citing Wikipedia-projectspace pages on Wikivoyage; in no way is this intended to mean I believe it applies as policy here, but it's a good rundown of the basic skills needed to edit any wiki). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but given the comment of this user regarding his status, we should avoid watching in an offensive and obvious manner. Do you think we can conclude this discussion on that note? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's just me but this user's editing pattern so far looks eerily similar to that of User:Cactusflies22, who has already been banned. Perhaps I'm overthinking it, but I'm wondering if one of the admins can investigate. The dog2 (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're on it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Midwestern Social Democrat and User:Resident of Roberto

The User:Midwestern Social Democrat account was created at 00:19, 30 March 2021 and commenced editing Illinois articles. Third edit was to create a new article on Future City, a near-ghost town in Illinois. Fifth edit also creation of a new article, Dale (Indiana). They made a few more edits until 00:56, 30 March 2021. The User:Resident of Roberto account was created 4 minutes later at 01:00 30 March 2021. It created an article on Roberto (Illinois), a fake location, so is ipso facto a vandalism account. Midwestern Social Democrat's next edit, about 15 hours later, was to say in the Pub that they are an Illinois resident and that Roberto (Illinois) is fake. Midwestern Social Democrat and Resident of Roberto's edits share a certain slightly unusual editing characteristic (which I'm not disclosing). I suspect they are sock puppets of each other. User:Libertarianmoderate is indefinitely banned at WV and globally locked on Wikimedia. Their home page says they have lived in Illinois most of their life. Like Midwestern Social Democrat, they have a username with a political meaning. I checked some of LM's edits and they contain the same editing characteristic as these other two editors.

I propose:

  1. Indef ban of User:Resident of Roberto as a vandalism-only account.
  2. Consideration of indef ban of User:Midwestern Social Democrat, if others agree that it is likely part of a pair of socks with the Resident of Roberto vandal. If there is doubt about that, we could make a CheckUser request for these two accounts. I think the pairing of socks is sufficient grounds for banning, without needing confirmation that they are also socks of LM, but if others agree it is LM, obviously that strengthens the case for banning. If a CheckUser request was made for the first two accounts, LM could be included also, but that might not bear fruit due to changes in connections over time.

Nurg (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a swift consensus, so I've blocked both accounts, but have left the user take pages open in case either has anything to say.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

85.206.100.254

85.206.100.254 has already been blocked for six months, but I support banning him indefinately thanks to a discussion on Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations, because he is now being charged for vandalism. I would like to consider

  • An indefinate ban on Wikivoyage
  • Account creation blocked
  • Inability to edit own talk page
  • If he ever gets on Wikipedia, block him there too, for misuse of multiple accounts and for trolling, disruption, and harassment
  • A CheckUser, just in case, because it's an IP address that has been up to no good

--JTZegers (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses change over time and thus should not be blocked indefinitely. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 21:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We never indefblock IP addresses, because they can be used by multiple individuals and are habitually reassigned to new devices. Six months is the absolute upper limit of blocks for IP addresses.
Your enthusiastic start on Wikivoyage is appreciated, but you'd be better off focussing on continuing the great content creation you've started, which will help you gain a better feel for how things work around here.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can already see the comments on this in my talk page coming to throw me under the (uninteresting picture of a) bus, I'm just trying to protect us from vandalism threats.--JTZegers (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, very much appreciated, but there's no need for you to protect us :-) The admin team is fairly large here and we (mostly) know what we're doing. We also have help from global sysops. As I haven't said it already, welcome to Wikivoyage.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 50 admins is a lot. There's some wiki's that only have one or two admins, and those ones are usually the weakly defended ones. (e.g. na.wiki) Wikivoyage however, is fairly decent in size, with admins from all around the world, and not geographically centred, and thus a lot of the admins have a lot of knowledge to also build a travel guide as well as the janitorial work.
However, with the weakly defended ones, it usually does not suffer from vandalism (wikidata is an exception though), and as a nawiki admin, I hope I do not have to block anyone, and the LTA's that vandalise pages there are usually cross-wiki vandals.
If this sounds like an essay, I'm sorry for wasting your time here, but I'm a person who generally either uses 2 word sentences or essays.
Take care, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and disambiguation ban for Soumya-8974

Discussion at the pub

== UBN ==

Swept in from the pub

There is a discussion underway here about what to do about ongoing contributions by an editor who has made unilateral changes repeatedly. Other views would be appreciated, and not just three views, excluding myself. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that at the top of this pub page it says "If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment." Nurg (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nurg, I'm well aware of that. But there's no spot for ban nominations and this is for a topic ban, not a policy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well, I think it's fine to create a new section heading at Requests for comment. Nurg (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion here

From what I know, there's been around 10 of their redirects being deleted recently, and a lot of us, especially @Pashley: has dealt with their unilateral redirects with Soumya. Soumya has also failed to listen to all of our talk page messages, and is banned on the English Wikipedia for the same reason. So what I'm proposing is:

For redirects

  1. No touching, tampering with or creating redirects until January 24 2022 00:50, including nominating redirects at vfd (even if it is meant to go for deletion).
  2. If this is broken, each and every time this ban is broken, there is an extra 60 days added to the redirect ban.
  3. Existing redirects may not be turned into an article, unless they get the consensus on the talk page. If so, someone else can add the article structure with Soumya only being able to add content to it onwards.
  4. (edit 01:04) Existing articles that if Soumya would propose to be redirected, they must use the {{Merge}} and get consensus on the talk page first (so basically NOT do what I and Ground Zero do, until this user gains our trust again because of too many unilateral changes. This also applies, even if they think it's beneficial)

For disambiguations

  1. They may not make any unilateral changes. The only thing they can do to disambiguation pages is add cities/parks/towns/airports to it until January 24 2022 00:50.

While it would have made sense that I started this thread two weeks ago, I just realized that after SelfieCity deleting wv:DAB and we may as well get started. The lack of communication and looking at their most recent 100 changes, it seems like a ban is the only way to go. I never wanted to do this, but it seems that they've got the most out of us.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit on July 5. I would support this, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of his edits to Eastern Europe are reverted though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a contradiction. His last edit was on July 5. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. My bad. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry to be contrarian, but is there really a need for this ban? How disruptive have the edits really been? I had the impression the user had caused quite a lot of VfD work, but having gone back over this year's archives there was very little directly caused by him. Doesn't the user at least deserve a proper warning relating to future actions (i.e. if you do this again, then we will impose this...) while he's active, rather than sneaking this in while he's offline several weeks after the last contentious edit? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's start off with December. He was topic banned on the English Wikipedia last year for redirects, but later got perma banned indefinitely for racism and lack of competence. Then he was more active here, but was still making the same mistakes as on Wikipedia here. He's moved pages with no discussion, changed a couple of tags on the bottom (while he's correct, it was the lack of communication), never communicated with us on their talk page except for once due to my harsh worded message, acting as a complete surprise here when they got reverted like I don't exist, just unilaterally changed disambiguation pages (see User talk:The dog2) and more recently, just removed a redirect to Eastern Europe and just restored the article with no discussion whatsoever, in which a whole thread was started at the pub because of this, and despite numerous pings and talk page messages, they never responded
If this was simplewiki, they'd have been banned indefinitely by now, but we don't have that one strike policy for those banned on other wiki's and doing the same mistakes as before. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you weaken your argument with the last paragraph. I don't think we'll ever have a one-strike policy. That's a really good way to lose good contributors over one mistake. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify simplewiki has the one strike policy for those block on another wiki, and are then making the same mistakes on simple as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. We have no such automatic policy, though. I still think it weakens your argument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But still, regardless, this user is banned on enwiki, and rather than their approach of just block indef (although they were also blocked for racism), I hope rather we can take some time to educate Soumya. In no way am I questioning their work towards Asian (mainly South and South East) destinations, it is just the redirects whom educating has failed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!' argument above. He hasn't been active for 3 weeks. Let's guarantee a topic ban as outlined if he creates additional unnecessary redirects, rather than giving him a topic ban while he's inactive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!: This user has been on commons and on wikidata recently. See this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the number of warnings we gave to editors who were far more egregious, I tend to agree with ThunderingTyphoons and Ikan Kekek and think this is too hasty. I personally don't see bans on other wikis or even other languages of Wikivoyage as factors that should influence our decision. Each wiki is governed in different ways with different rules. Gizza (roam) 05:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we did give them warnings for a number of things, and here's just a list of things they did that diverted the community's attention, when this could've been easily avoidable if they had learnt their lesson on the English Wikipedia. I'll not list all of them though.
  1. Unilaterally changed Hydrabad airport which doesn't merit its own article
  2. The user changed Tibetan Empire from Extra hierarchal region. While this was technically correct, the lack of communication left some to question.
  3. Created a bunch of Taiwan redirects, which caused a political debacle at vfd.
  4. Asked Bengal (India) to be undeleted when they didn't look at the Bangladesh perspective
  5. Unilaterally changed the redirect on Canton and Teochew, which @Pashley: and I reverted
  6. Made TW and MO redirects, but this is not an encyclopedia
  7. Removed the redirect to Eastern Europe after 12 years with no discussion, and failed to engage in discussion on the pub.
But I would like to rather educate this user, and hopefully they realize that we don't need this whole blob of redirects. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with TT, IK and DG that we don't need a topic ban just now. If he doesn't return or returns without doing problematic edits (or slightly problematic as just as a small portion of total edits), we don't need to do anything. If he starts doing problematic edits, I won't oppose somebody warning him clearly and explicitly that these types of edit can get him banned. –LPfi (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly I'm a bit of a reactionary about blocks; I really think they should be a last resort & have sometimes wondered if other admins were too quick to apply one. In this case, though, I've seen enough irritating behaviour that if he or she does it again, I'd be quite ready to slap on a short (1-3 day) block as a wake-up call. Pashley (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what do you think about the topic of discussion? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical questions

Is it actually possible to create the sort of selective block proposed above? How? I took a look at the menu presented when you click on "block" next to a user name & saw no obvious way to do it. Did I miss something?

Is there a way to add a user to one's watchlist, so you'll see all their edits? Yes, I can find them on recent changes or go to the user page every few days & click "contributions", but is there an easier way? Pashley (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of those things are possible, though could be wrong. While the second one sounds tempting, particularly for sysops, in reality it would facilitate (and possibly encourage) user stalking.
If this topic ban were adopted in the future, it would be up to all of us to just keep track of the user's edits, and there are enough people on recent changes patrol that this would be realistic. —The preceding comment was added by ThunderingTyphoons! (talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 July 2021
Sadly not. All we have to do is just monitor on whether they are tampering with redirects or not. They can still edit redirects, but they are banned, so if so, then they get a 60 day extension. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can also of course filter recent changes to just show logged actions such as page moves and creations.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the possibility of using [I'm not allowed to disclose publically or else I'll get accused of outing]. This was used on commons towards A1Cafel using flickr2commons. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DhrGabriel

This user's content has been a mix of what's questionable and what's not. Special:Diff/4308673 is an obvious case of vandalism, but they have done a useful edit to The Hague on October the 10th. I also wonder why this user is making so many misspellings. Their userpage state's they're an en-4, but I doubt someone who's an en-4 would make that many spelling mistakes (unless that's how it's spelled in Dutch). Then there's the mix of good and bad edits at Special:Diff/4310156 which I didn't notice they're blanked a section which was later restored by FredTC.

Nearly all of this user's edits are to their userpage as well with some unusual things on their userpage such as "Do not revert my edits. They are very useful" or "Do not delete this page. I am not spam." giving me a suspicion about this user. I personally feel that this user is not here to build a travel guide, given all of this, and hence this ban nom. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this user has spelled questions as "quastions" on their userpage, but google translate seems to be giving me "vragen" in Dutch. So it's clearly not a nl to en translation error. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you simply use escalating blocks? Block for 3 days with a warning, then if the abuse recurs, 2 weeks, 3 months, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do so, but this is a questionable mix of what's useful and what's not. I don't want to outright warn them per WV:DENY though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do anything just yet, please. I'll open some dialogue with them about their edits later today, in Dutch if it needs be. The snarky edit summaries and to a larger extend their frequent spelling mistakes make me think that they are underage. I like to think that there is something to gain for us and just blocking right away won't help a bit. -- Wauteurz (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure no hurry. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Wauteurz has handled this situation (partially at least, although the mistakes they're making now is not vandalism), I'm guessing this ban is Not done. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Most of the questionable edits seem to have stopped (though four edits don't have to say much), and my explanation of why some of their previous edits have been undone seems to have been read and used. FredTC seems to be keeping an eye on the edits to The Hague. I'll try to keep an eye on Gabriel's edits for a while to make the necessary corrections, since phrasings like "In one word: Don't do it.", while true, are worded a bit too harshly to keep. Wauteurz (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wauterz: nicely done. Ground Zero (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt Wauteurz :-) I'll also try keep an eye out for this user's edits as well, but you've already done a good job in mentoring this user. Thanks again SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One edit of his I recently undid was deleting the whole Norfolk Island star discussion, based on his edit summary I feel it was good faith though (he also nominated a usable article for star but this shouldn't be significant enough to effect a ban). Tai123.123 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was earlier a guide article but I downgraded it since it lacked coordinates SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so now there's this new account called DhrNicolas and I suspect them both to be a happy set of sockpuppets per the duck test. Pending further edits by this user, I may ask for a CU check. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolas was added to Wikivoyage:Wikivoyagers by location on the 10th about 15 minutes after Gabriel added themself. Gabriel then edited the same page a day later to make Nicolas' since-removed listing link to his own profile. I'd say there's no doubt about them being the same person because of that, but it'd be wise to wait and see what edits Nicolas makes. Wauteurz (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no harm in keeping an eye on a new user's edits, but bear in mind that it's not against policy to use multiple accounts (declared or not) on Wikivoyage. Only when they're used disruptively do they become an issue (and even then, the account would be sanctioned for vandalism, touting, and/or block evasion, not for sockpuppetry per se). Our CU policy is here.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's time to introduce a policy against sockpuppetry then. There's no problem with using multiple accounts, but I've seen how sockpuppetry has been used to intimidate other users on Wikipedia, such as when I ran into some issues with a radical Korean nationalist (and after I stopped regular editing on Wikipedia, he used his multiple accounts to create an illusion of consensus). The dog2 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that instance, it was the intimidation and attempt to create the illusion of consensus that were the real problems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The account DhrNicolas was made so that my brother used Wikivoyage. He created his userpage, and filled it with information about electrical cars and about a shopping centre in the netherlands, The mall of the Netherlands in a subrub of The Hague. This was nominated for deletion 2 times and deleted. I aso was on that acount on this version of Wikivoyage, on the Wikivoyage:Graffitti wall. We are not sockpuppets. If you leave a message on my talk page: User talk:DhrGabriel then i will create more accounts, but the men behind those sockpuppets is DhrGabriel.After i posted this, i will create those accounts. Remember:We are not suckpuppets when i createted those accounts. Understand? DhrGabriel (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolas (global edits) only made one edit to the English Wikivoyage, which is what we're on right now. The other edits you mentioned were to the Dutch Wikivoyage. They aren't one and the same entity, in case you weren't aware of that yet. His deleted user page with information about the Tesla Model X looks to be removed because of touting, or "niet werven" , as it is called on Dutch Wikivoyage. The admins there don't seem to have pointed that out, which would have been useful.
In any case, I see that your brother requested to have a look into Wikivoyage's rules. You can find them at Wikivoyage:Welcome, newcomers (NL-Wikivoyage) and Wikivoyage:Manual of style (NL-Wikivoyage). I hope that this resolves those questions.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Userpages are never to be used for things like advertising or even encyclopedic info. Such things like Tesla Model X stuff are inappropriate for a userpage. Also, it's sockpuppet, not suckpuppet. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information, Wauterz and SHB2000! Yes, i will think it will really help at my brother. I will tell how old i am. I am underage, 11 years old. Can a adminstrator make a special policy on underage users? DhrNicolas is 10 years old, also underage, but dont worry. Can someone explain me what the rules and policies of wikivoyage are when you are underage, e.g. under 18 years old? Thanks! DhrGabriel (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. Be sure to view my talk page User talk:DhrGabriel and my user page User:DhrGabriel and leave a message on it![reply]
I don't think there is any required age to edit Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's a minimum age of 13, but I don't know where that is noted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't have a minimum age to edit, as COPPA only applies to sites where they take your personal details, but WMF sites don't. And we didn't mind AnglaisEP's students doing an English task. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think they were that young. But if there isn't a minimum age, I certainly wouldn't propose having one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! Oh, now i know that there is not an minium age to edit. I am not sharing my personal information. Thanks! DhrGabriel (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this discussion & some others, I find myself visualizing a group of w:Daleks shouting either "Exterminate! Exterminate!" or "Educate! Educate!" My vote is for educate. Pashley (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can probably close this discussion now? There's no reason to block or ban DhrGabriel, and any further help he may need can be sought on a more appropriate page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super-duper.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although this user is now globally locked and I've indef blocked for being a sockpuppet of the globally locked Te Reo Ahitereiria, the many phrasebooks that were created when this user remain. We can either delete all of them, keep all of them, or keep the CKI Malay phrasebook and delete the rest of the outline phrasebooks. Also, what do we do with future sockpuppets of this user? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any general Wikimedia policy about how to deal with the contributions of globally locked users? My tendency would be to treat a globally locked user who seemingly did nothing wrong on Wikivoyage differently from someone we blocked because they did something horrible here. Therefore, I would tend to support not deleting this user's work here, but it would be good to know why they are globally locked. Does anyone know why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were blocked for x-wiki vandalism and sockpuppetry. I did nominate Minecraft tourism for deletion tho, because that's unlikely to ever become a travel article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also to the general Wikimedia policy, I don't think there's any for users that are just globally locked. For users that are globally banned, anyone may revert their edits, but this user isn't globally or WMF banned, just locked. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so my feeling is, nothing they did at Wikivoyage constituted vandalism or otherwise damaged the site, so I'd say we should keep their work, with the exception of the Minecraft non-article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sure. I wanted to keep them too, but wanted other opinions on this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, but what do we do with future sockpuppets of this user? We can either treat it like the Jabolero case, except Jabolero's former account isn't globally locked or just delete, block and report to SRG. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we know that they are globally locked, I think we would have to delete any further contributions from their sockpuppets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of phrasebooks

Yesterday, Ground Zero brought up the question of whether those phrasebooks they created are reliable. My suggestion is to probably use ausil.org to verify them, but ausil does not have a full list of all languages that this user started phrasebooks from.

After the fact that their original sockpuppet account on en.wikipedia was blocked for "vandalism", there is a chance that none of these were created in good faith, and I suspect that the Eastern Arrernte phrasebook was also created by this user under an IP user. So, rebringing the discussion as to whether they should be kept, or deleted, not due to lock evasion this time, but because of reliability this time. Pinging @Graham87: and @Ikan Kekek: if you could comment. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say kill with fire because, in response to Ground Zero, yeah, this is basically another Scots Wikipedia situation all over again. I've been following this user for a while now and they seem to be a teen/young adult (the Minecraft thing gives that away) who's obsessed with highly obscure languages. As far as I'm concerned if you're going to write a phrasebook you should have at least some fluent command of the language ... that's just common sense to me. Graham87 (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised especially after reading m:Special:Diff/22833501 or analysing their comment, "Graham87 has a history of bullying me on the English Wikipedia and when I started to work on Wikivoyage, he continued to do so, yet nothing has been done by the stewards.", I wonder where the false accusation of "bullying" comes from... I guess it's somewhat different if it's an obscure place (even some of our long established users have created such pages like Pulu Keeling National Park or Guadalupe Island), but this user's only destination article created was Groote Eylandt, probably because a) they're obsessed with foreign languages and b) it's an obscure place.
Should their sv.wikivoyage edits also be reverted? I reverted some of them, but I cannot seem to find sv.voy's page for dealing with problematic users. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete the phrasebooks unless we can verify their authenticity. Better to have no information than wrong information. The dog2 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do, too. Ground Zero (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87, Ikan Kekek, The dog2, Ground Zero: I deleted the Anindilyakwa phrasebook and the Mirning phrasebook as there is a 5:0 consensus to delete those. I left the Cocos Malay phrasebook tho, because it has some content in it and I would like to leave it to another admin to delete it, and the Pitjantjatjara phrasebook since there's a vfd discussion going on about it and there's two keeps (one by Koavf and the other by Tai123.123). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend deleting all of them unless there's a way for us to determine their reliability and someone wants to take the time to do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the Cocos phrasebook per your comment, leaving the Pitjantjatjara phrasebook as the only one created by this user as I don't feel comfortable deleting something midway during a vfd discussion when there's two keeps, but I'll speedily delete it if/when both Justin and Tai123.123 change their minds. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now all phrasebooks and travel topics created by this user have now been deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luchy04 and IP specialising in Italian destinations centred around Lake Como

It first started with 151.20.20.192 on 2022-02-05, almost a month and a half ago when this IP suddenly started creating so many beach stubs for the beaches around Lake Como. They created 12 stubs in the period of 40 minutes, except for two which were created the next day on 2022-02-06. The beach stubs were all merged to the relevant region by Ikan Kekek, but then they returned on 2022-02-18, a few days later but then creating more stubs, some of which were confirmed as copyvio, either from other websites or Wikipedia without attribution, which is a violation of the CC BY SA license. This is not to forget they were given several warnings by Ikan and then they were blocked for three days on 2022-03-12 for three days per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban and all the articles that have not been merged have been nominated for deletion.

On 2022-03-18, they returned under 31.190.197.121 and created the now deleted Landscape from the mountains of Lierna Lake Como which was copied nearly word for word from Landscapes from Palagia coast range without giving attribution violating the CC BY SA 3.0 license.

Today on 2022-03-20, they returned back under 31.190.200.24 with several chunks of text on Lierna, which Earwig's says it is not a copyvio and so does putting it into my search engine, but it looks very suspicious, but maybe that is because it was machine translated from Italian and my Italian is only a couple of tourist phrases. This IP user has had several chances but they never utilised them properly.

Meanwhile, for those of you that remember the times during late July last year, Luchy04 was a serial copyright violator who was a problem user on en, fr, nl, it, fi, de, es and pt wikivoyages and specialised in Italian destinations and after a 1 week block on both en and fr wikivoyages, it was then concluded that we (en.voy) were going to adopt a one strike and you're out policy on Luchy04, and since then, they never made an edit on the English Wikivoyage. However, I now suspect this user is editing under several IPs to prevent their main account from getting blocked. However, one key difference is that Luchy04 occasionally responded to messages on their talk page, but per by @Andyrom75:, they only responded on the Italian Wikivoyage so we'd leave them alone. It's time to end the copyright violations and indef block the IPs and the account and then delete all articles by this IP on sight. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we ask for checkusers on any of these IPs? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think CUs can connect IPs to accounts per the global checkuser and the privacy policy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well, I think your analysis passes the "duck" test, though I don't understand why a user wouldn't simply stop the copyright violation instead of creating a whole bunch of socks. I don't get it, but they certainly wouldn't be the first... Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely an unusual type of disruptive behaviour which seeing this is a first for me. However, I guess banning them won't do much because it's easy to just switch IPs but we can just speedy delete all of them as they'd then be community banned. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a user with thousands of socks that's committed a lot of copyvio, so that's why I'm saying this isn't a first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I forgot about him and I can't believe I just did especially when I just reverted one of his edits during my lunch break a few hours ago. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the two remaining articles per your comment in vfd "If no-one would object, we could simply delete all of these as "No useful content or test." Does anyone object?". If someone really wants to keep the Mandello del Lario article, they may wish to recreate it from scratch with the conditions of they're not 151.20.20.192 and socks, Luchy04, and with no copyvios but I really don't feel comfortable leaving copyvios for this long. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was there remaining copyvio in the Mandello del Lario article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apols for the late response. A google translate from English to Italian and then entering the very same keywords gave me w:it:Olcio. More specifically:
IP version (google translated from English to Italiano):
"Olcio è una frazione del comune italiano di Mandello del Lario situata a nord del paese, accanto all'antico borgo Lierna sul Lago di Como, è adiacente a Lierna, ed ecco l'hotel 5 stelle lusso Lario Resort."
From it.wikipedia
"Olcio (in lecchese Òlcc) è una frazione del comune italiano di Mandello del Lario posta a nord del centro abitato, a fianco dell'antico borgo Lierna sul Lago di Como."
It seems slightly modified, but there was no attribution given to the Italian Wikipedia so it remains a copyvio and we cannot trust this IP that this does not contain a copyvio. It looks like we have a Brendan 2.0. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any last minute objections before these IPs + Luchy04 get formally banned from editing the English language Wikivoyage? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked both. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I just also noticed the IP is globally blocked for xwiki abuse. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their newly created article on cannibalism does not convince me that this user is acting in good faith and for the most part, their edit summaries too. What more, their username is a giveaway too – it first looks like a random series of letters and numbers, until I Wikidataed it up and I got d:Q788771, which is the item for the Donner Party, and according to its item description, it was a "group of American pioneers who cannibalized their own family members in order to survive". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ban on mentioning the Donner Party; Wikivoyage's novelty Oregon Trail article mentions them and it was featured on the front page. Q788771 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, this is an April Fools joke in poor taste, not a bannable offense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any objection to slushing this nomination? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek It'll be automatically archived by a bot. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything is automatically archived by a bot from this page. If it is, when? After 30 days? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
28 days after the last comment was placed, according to Template:Auto archiving, though I changed this page to 14 as 28 is overly long. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to put up with trolling, false accusations of vandalism and touting and edit warring. It first started when @Ibaman: made some adjustments in Special:Diff/4438901 to conform the Myeik article to conform to Wikivoyage:Image policy. Today, an IPv6 address likely this user, manually reverted their edit, which was soon reverted after by me. A few minutes later, I adjusted one of Myeik's shopping mall listing which had changed its name and I added the mall's FB page, which is standard for what we do when there's no official website. A few minutes later, they then readded the images, accusing me of vandalism, and reverted my edit that updated the listing, quoting our don't tout policy. I later reverted the revert of my update to a shopping mall, and then also manually cut down the images, and then later I started a discussion with them regarding their edits and false accusations, but instead they refused to discuss by blanking that thread. Only a few minutes after, they reverted me with further false accusations, and for now, I've let the article be for sometime. They did eventually reply to another thread I started (see User_talk:Yanlinnnaung#Refusing_to_discuss), but in a very aggressive tone, and it is clear they do not want to change their behaviour.

However, it's not the images or the updated listing that matters, it's the personal attacks and behaviour in this case. Repeatedly accusing good-faith edits as "vandalism" and adding URLs as "touting" especially when explained to them is basically being disruptive to prove a point, POV pushing, and making Wikivoyage less fun for others to contribute. It's really time to put an end to this.

As I do have the ability to block, I am not going to do a block for three days myself nor protect the page, as I am involved in this dispute. But I'd like to formally ban this user, because to me, it seems they are clearly not here to build a travel guide. Their patten of editing shows that, and the second thing is their very promotional userpage. Third is the "Free advices" on their talk page, which is a misuse of their talk page, and why should we allow trolls and users who make Wikivoyage less fun to edit here? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is blocking, not banning yet. I can block. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 3 days for edit warring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the block. I hope they reform their behaviour. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have not, have been blocked permanently for block evasion, and have now used two IPs as socks. If there's an advantage in it, I support a user ban now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now strongly support one too, after reading their edit summary in Special:Diff/4440681. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though at first glance it might seem that this IP range is being used by good-faith users, I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be used by ArticCynda. The IPs geolocate to Bristol, England, and the area of editing, Tyrol, is also a region that AC usually edits in (at least from what I saw in the Igls otbp nomination). Given how Ibaman and I were playing whack-a-mole with his IPv4 socks last week, I would not be surprised if he switched to an IPv6 address to prevent being caught. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but where's the evidence? Editing Tyrol articles isn't a crime. I'd say best we can do is keep an eye on the user (the same as we would for any newly-registered or anonymous user). Also, we can't ban an IP address.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of their comments is another indicator. For a bit more context, have a look at nl:Overleg gebruiker:SHB2000 (an absolute joke), nl:Wikivoyage:Reizigerscafé#Politiek geïnspireerd vandalisme op Wikivoyage and fr:Wikivoyage:Café des Voyageurs#Vandalisme et censure politique sur Wikivoyage. While we can't indef block IPs, we can certainly block the range for 2-4 weeks (which I sometimes do with Brendan's IP ranges). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The user talk page comments don't sound like AC to me. However, if we're using how people "sound" as a basis for nominating bans, that suggests we don't have any real evidence.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we pretty much all agree this IP is a sockpuppet of ArticCynda at Talk:Igls? That said, my understanding is that we try to avoid blocking IP ranges unless absolutely necessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks of up to 3 months for block evasion are routine, aren't they? I don't think they require a user ban nomination, though. If this is a sock of a banned user, the user is already banned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: 3 months is usually the upper limit for a single IP address, but given that this is an IP range, any more than 1 month is a bit too much IMO. It may be an IPv6 range, and the English Wikipedia regularly does 6-month blocks of IPv6 ranges, but...
@SelfieCity: We may try and want to avoid blocking IPv4 ranges, but usually blocking an IPv6 range is as good as blocking one single IPv4 address. It has worked on Brendan countless times before, and I did indeed once do an IPv6 block of a range that AC used. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different IP addresses in that discussion. Show me a diff of the IP address we're talking about here editing Igls in 2019 and I'll be convinced.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a goose? If you're not sure, ask and see if there's an answer forthcoming, but how much doubt do you really have? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clearly missing something you're all seeing. The only 'evidence' anyone has presented is the IP address edited Austrian articles which, again, is not a crime.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at their user talk page again, and actually, I agree with you. I don't see that they were given adequate time to respond. We should probably apologize to them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2001:630:E4:4220:F908:D1D0:2CB3:80F9 edited Talk:Igls several times (see special:diff/3813514, special:diff/3809346 and special:diff/3809311) and again, the IPs in this range geolocate to Bristol, where AC's IP sockpuppets geolocate to, including the latest few (check all the IPs listed in User:SHB2000/IPs). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people live in Bristol, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time, Brendan's IPs geolocate to the Sunshine Coast, a city with around 70% of Bristol's population and yet we've never had any issues with range blocking the /64 he uses. I would indeed be very shocked to find another user that is not AC whose IPs geolocate to Bristol, edited Talk:Igls and maintains a similar tone. What more, AC is even aware of this ban nomination. The chances of this IP range not being used by AC is almost zero. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2001:630:E4:4220:F908:D1D0:2CB3:80F9 is an obvious sock. Is there any argument about that? 62.252.177.250 admitted it and 94.119.64.1 is also obvious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All IPs listed in User:SHB2000/IPs are quite obvious socks (even our IP friend updated the log), though AC still denies that and claims we need more evidence (and also claims we cannot use w:WP:DUCK against his sockpuppets as this is not Wikipedia), but I don't think there are any other users who claim that I have "a questionable editing record".
But if we still want more evidence in order to block this /64, AC always has a tendency to stalk our contributions both on Wikivoyage and on other Wikimedia projects; remember that time when we were discussing whether A1Cafel should be T-banned from deletion requests on Commons last year? (in particular, c:Special:Diff/576086042/576317578) Now, recently, we had a long, heated discussion with an IP on Talk:Santorini and while that IP is unlikely to be AC, 2001:630:E4:4220:4886:F484:513E:4D2A could very well be. On Wikivoyage, there may be little evidence, but have a look at c:Special:Contributions/ArticCynda; editing in a similar area (Santorini), but just under their account on Commons. I'm happy to scavenge more evidence if needed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete any articles that Veillg1 consciously violated policy?

It really saddens me that I have to propose this, but in simple words, this is a proposal to speedily delete any articles out of style that Veillg1 consciously violated as suggested by Ikan Kekek in Special:Diff/4483541. For the record, I know we all make style errors, but unfortunately, this issue has been going on for a long time. Specifically, these policies that Veillg1 doesn't seem to care about and likes to pretend don't exist, perfectly summarized by Ground Zero which I'll paste below.

  1. using unnecessary disambiguation in article titles
  2. including postal address information
  3. Minimal use of images
  4. including information that is relevant to residents, but not usually to visitors

Whilst we usually favour using soft security, it is evident that it has failed to work against Veillg1; they've had 8 months is enough to reform their behaviour but sadly, they decided to do their own thing. Technically, per policy, this user can be banned without nomination due to their block on Wikipédie en fraçais, but I'd prefer to not apply that policy in this case since Veillg1 does add a lot of useful travel information.

If this doesn't make sense, I'll clarify this when I get home. I'm typing this on mobile while on the train home so I do apologize in advance if this doesn't make sense

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest amending the proposal to:
I'd be fine with that proposal. However, a lot of the time, Veill1g adds postal codes when they create the article so it technically can't be reverted which is why I thought of speedy deleting articles that included postal codes. We could also speedily delete the article if it contains postal codes if they included them while creating the article and reverting them if they add it afterwards. The same goes with points 3 and 4. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. How about a "revert or delete, as appropriate" approach. We hope, of course, that it doesn't come to this. Ground Zero (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Support your proposal. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The expression "consciously violated policy" is false. Your obstructionist requires a strong reaction. Let's analyze each of the points:
    1. On Wikivoyage, there has been no article of my creation with unnecessary disambiguation. Homonymous articles to which a disambiguation was added to the title were useful (eg Rivière-Saint-Jean (Minganie)); there is Rivière-Saint-Jean (unorganized territory of Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine region)). According to the evolution of the editorial content, we can reasonably believe that this toponym will eventually have an article on Wikivoyage. Thus, the said title is harmonized with Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc... including the French version of Wikivoyage. The claim "using unnecessary disambiguation in article titles" is totally false. When I use disambiguation, it's because it's useful to readers and harmonizing with other projects in this Wiki group. Your approach (without disambiguation until the creation of a homonymous article) sows confusion. And even if you see things differently, it doesn't require blocking or "speedily deleting" content.
    2. Postal address. In Canada, the Postal Code is very useful. Examples: A resident of Montreal has requested that his subscription to the Montreal newspaper be issued for the cottage rented in Portneuf (QC) for one month. A camping tourist in Rivière-du-Loup (QC) bought online on Amazon with a request for delivery to the campsite. In these examples, the postal code was essential. It is false to assert that the postal code is no longer in use (or of little use). In addition, the postal code makes it possible to delimit the zones of villages, for example, on the Lower North Shore. Nevertheless, there are few postal codes indicated in the content of my editorial articles on Wikivoyage. The ZIP code argument is not even worth discussing; even less, a "speedily delete" process in the administrators page.
    3. Minimal use of images. This argument is entirely wrong. In general, articles on Wikivoyage lack images; generally, article topics don't have images on Wikicommons (or not enough to have a variety). Nevertheless, the number of images is gradually increasing on Wikicommons. Also, in articles I created on Wikivoyage, there are usually few images; I wish there were more. Readers appreciate the images in article. There is a saying: "A picture is worth a thousand words". I would very much like each geographic article to have an image (of the panoramic type) as an article introduction banner.
    4. The statement "including information that is relevant to residents, but not usually to visitors" is false. What is the demarcation between subjects for residents and visitors? Visitors can get involved in community social activities: community hall, local festival, grocery store, general store, municipal library, local sports tournaments, etc. How do you classify vacationers who rent a cottage for the summer? The content of the articles (or part of an article) from my pen is entirely according to the mission of Wikivoyage, oriented towards tourism.
    In short, by rereading your past comments and those on this page, I believe that you are looking for relevance as an auditor. Your argument is weak. You make a mountain out of details. Put your energies on the right things to move the encyclopedia forward. And your blocking measure is akin to the Russian political regime where good contributors to society are coerced and jailed for holding progressive views. You're wasting a lot of my time. Your time and mine could be better spent designing (or revising) content.
    I demand that you stop this unnecessary harassment. Please help contributors to advance the encyclopedia rather than harming them. Veillg1 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You demand? And it's very interesting you use the word "encyclopedia" after all this time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've made the strongest argument for a user ban, by making global arguments against Wikivoyage policies and guidelines in this thread, having never tried to gain a consensus for your views in the appropriate places and continued to do what you want, contrary to those policies and guidelines. Shall we ban you now? It seems like anything else is a waste of time. I move to ban you now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Veillg1: First of all, please watch your tone. Claiming that this ban nomination is blocking measure is akin to the Russian political regime where good contributors to society are coerced and jailed for holding progressive views is a serious statement. I understand that this might seem like I'm "wasting a lot" of time, but you've been told countless times about these issues. Also, this isn't an encyclopedia, it was never one, and it will never be one. Now, let's discuss the points you've raised:
  • For point 1, then please explain why we have had to move Rivière-Saint-Jean, Saint-Augustin, Bonne-Espérance, Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Saint-Ours, Sainte-Julie, Saint-Siméon just to name a few. There are countless other articles that we've had to fix but feel free to through the move log just to see how many pages of yours we've moved.
  • For point 2, per Wikivoyage:Postal codes, Canada is not listed as an exception, unlike the UK or Argentina. If you'd like to make an exception, make your argument on Wikivoyage talk:Postal codes.
  • For point 3, again, travellers may be reading Wikivoyage articles in areas with poor reception. To name just one anecdotal experience, just the map in Telangana took 10 seconds to load while I was on a freeway near a city of 600,000; if one image took so long to load in a reasonably developed area, then how long do you think it'll take in a place with poor reception? Again, make your argument on Wikivoyage talk:Image policy.
  • For point 4, you've been told about this umpteen times before and I'm not going to repeat all of it again.
However, I will not tolerate my actions being called "akin to the Russian political regime" and other personal attacks. Your personal attacks in that message alone are well documented. I now support a full, indef ban. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ban nomination

To be clear, SHB2000 and I are now nominating Veillg1 to be indefinitely banned, on the basis that the behavior and attitude shown by this user makes it clear that anything else will be a waste of time. And I would refer all of you not only to the early part of this thread above, but also to User talk:Veillg1 and their user contributions, as well as the fairly similar userban threads for User:W. Frank, aka User:118.93nzp and User:210.246.47.112, and also User:Alice, who like this user produced a mixture of a lot of good work but persistent violations of policies and guidelines they didn't like and wasted lots and lots of time causing us to edit their work and constantly arguing about the policies they didn't agree with (but in their cases, also routinely edit warred and argued in a bunch of other threads). You can read all the drawn-out back-and-forth that ultimately led to those accounts being banned in Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive. If any of you feels that this case is somehow different in kind from the case(s) I refer to above, such that we should spend time on gradually increasing blocks, please explain why. Thanks, everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links for reference (as the discussions seem messy and it took some time for me to get my head around as to what was happening then):
--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your overreaction reconfirms the correctness of my last post on the talk page. From shape details on Wikivoyage, you make a mountain out of it. The examples you bring to draw your conclusions are weak; please read my answers to each point carefully.
My contributions to Wikivoyage and Wikipedia have always been made with rigor and in compliance with generally recognized editorial rules. I learned a lot about the framework of the various Wiki projects; and I still have a lot to learn. Thank you to the researchers who assisted me in this major editorial process. Thank you also to Internet users (including yourselves in many cases) who have reviewed writings designed from my keyboard. It's safe to say that the vast majority (maybe 90%) of their reviews do the job just fine. Together, we have greatly enriched the Wikivoyage encyclopedia; but, there are still many articles to be published.
Nevertheless, I'm fed up with this unjustified harassment regarding small details of form: postal code, images in an article, homonyms, info on residents versus visitors... And I'm fed up with this abuse of power made by anonymous Internet users and appointed administrators for life, who threaten by blocking initiatives at the slightest deviation from style of edition.
I would love to team up editorially just as I have had the privilege of leading large teams of editorial projects. Having published over 25,000 articles (and several books) of my own in various media, the best interest of the reader has always been my first editorial guideline; this is what I applied with heart on Wikivoyage and Wikipedia. The same enthousiasm animated me as a journalist.
In my humble opinion, the collective effort must be devoted to adding quality content to Wikivoyage. In Canada (particularly in Quebec), there is a vaccum of information on Wikivoyage; many localities and regions have no articles or published articles need to be updated. I devoted myself wholeheartedly to this great mission. I am very proud of my editorial accomplishment on Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. Hoping that the mission of Wikivoyage continues in the concept of universal encyclopedia. Veillg1 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so now you think that Wikivoyage is an encyclopedia. Wow, should've known that before... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Veillg1, I don't see a point in wasting my time engaging with you, at this point, but just very briefly, for the record - though I don't think this even bears stating - all of us have been highly appreciative of the relevant information you have added to this travel guide, and protesting that you do good work does not advance any argument, because we all know you do good work, and that's why you have yet to be blocked even for a minute to date. I see no reason to restate the points made in this thread and over and over again on your user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So note, everyone, there is a Point 5 that we forgot to include: persistently including overly verbose, minutely detailed encyclopedic content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the most important point. —SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is escalating quickly. As a neutral party, with no personal involvement in the dispute and no prior dealings with Veillg1 that I can remember, it seems to me there's one single problem manifesting itself in several ways. The user disagrees with a number of our policies, and despite repeated explanations and reminders from the three other users involved in the above conversation (Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek and SHB2000), has continually edited in a way that ignores the policies they don't agree with. No matter the intentions, that is disruptive.

Has the user been made aware that they can propose changes to policy and how this is done? @Veillg1: do you realise that almost none of our policies is set in stone, and that they can be, and are, changed? The right way to do this is to start a discussion on the relevant policy talk page, to make your best arguments, and to allow and engage with a community discussion. If the proposal convinces enough other participants, a consensus will be reached in favour, and the policy will be changed. Have you tried this? What was the outcome? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what is written above, so I won't repeat it.
I agree in particular that this is escalating quickly, which I don't think anyone wants. I think we can get a much better resolution to this if Veillg1 were to agree to accept the policies listed above, and edit accordingly, until the community agrees to change them. As someone who has led large editorial projects, I am sure that you understand the need to have policies so that contributors can work together, instead of creating discord.
@Veillg1:, could this be a good way out of this problem? Ground Zero (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Veillg1 chooses to accept the policies above and apologize for claiming that my proposal is akin to the Russian political regime where good contributors to society are coerced and jailed for holding progressive views, then that would be much better way out of this problem than the way we're currently going at. However, until then, I'm still in favour of indef banning them as their behaviour resemble like the list of sockpuppets that were mentioned by Ikan Kekek earlier in this thread. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but if we can't get a decent-sized consensus behind that, at the next violation of any policies or guidelines by them, we need to impose a 3-day block right away, then ditto with the subsequent 2-week block, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still in favour of an indef block as Veillg1 claimed my actions were akin to the Russian political regime where good contributors to society are coerced and jailed for holding progressive views and never apologized for that, but agree that if they do violate one of the five points listed above, we need to impose a 3-day block, though our policy allows us to indefinitely block Veillg1 as they're blocked on the French Wikipedia for the exact same reason why we're even discussing this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it allows an indefblock or userban currently without consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that was the reason why Andre Carrotflower was able to indef block Tony1 (talk · contribs) (as they were indef blocked on the French Wikipedia). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if we really want to revisit that, but in any case, Tony did not add lots of useful information. Frank is a closer analogy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True. I wasn't around during the times when W.Frank and their sockpuppets were banned (but I was when Tony1 asked to be unblocked late last year), but my main point is the one-strike rule can be applied to Veillg1 if needed – but as I said on their talk page, it is "something I really do not want to do or even think about". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a previous post, Ground Zero mentions that no one wants escalation; and me neither. In summary, he suggests a possible solution through community discussions on amending editorial policies. For my part, this track seems to me suitable and diplomatic. However, I'm not sure I quite understand how to start such a discussion. Veillg1 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could be offered to promise the following: (1) That you will take some time to think about everything, and say yourself how long that is (# of weeks, months); (2) That during this period you will not repeat the kinds of edits that were identified as inconsistent with policies as they're currently written; (3) That when you feel like you've had enough time to think about everything you will either (3.1) continue contributing but will simply cease making the specific edits which fall into the identified policy-breaking pattern, or (3.2) (if at that point you still think the same way you think now about the policies): that you will post proposals for how to change policies with respect to your misgivings that you expressed above, and that are reflected in your edits, on the relevant talk pages (in the form of "change x to y", with a short and clear rationale), and that you won't make any edits to articles until those discussions are "formally" resolved (which shouldn't take too long, objectively), and that if your proposals aren't met with consensus, that you will simply do what's described in 3.1. That's just my suggesstion, hope you and others find it appealing. Twsabin (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veillg1: It's good to hear you're in favour of community discussions. I had kind of thought Ground Zero and I had already explained how to start a discussion above (me) and on your talk page (GZ), but perhaps we weren't explicit enough. You would do it one at a time, for each policy you'd like to change. For example, if you think Canadian postcodes should be allowed, then make that proposal at Wikivoyage talk: Postal codes: start a new section of that page and make your argument as to why it's important for postcodes to be included in Canadian listings. Wait for other community members' opinions and the discussion proceeds from there. If your arguments are persuasive, there may be a consensus in favour of your proposal, in which case the proposal will pass, and we'll change the policy to allow the inclusion of postcodes on Canada articles. If there is no consensus, or if the consensus rests against your proposal, we won't change the policy. Either way, we expect that all contributors to Wikivoyage will respect and follow the policy as it is written. This means that if your proposal is unsuccessful, you must accept that (even if you still don't like it), and make sure your edits obey and uphold the policy. Is that clearer?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other policy talk pages where you might want to post an argument: Wikivoyage talk:External links, Wikivoyage talk:Goals and non-goals, Wikivoyage talk:Image policy, Wikivoyage talk:Tone. In each case, make sure you read the policy page first and ask any questions you have if there's anything you don't understand, and you also might want to review previous discussion on those talk pages (including in archives) to see what the previous arguments have been and whether you can address them in your argument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following this too closely in the past, but looking at this in more detail now, I'd support the precedent we ultimately took with Frank: an indefinite ban. It seems clear that multiple attempts have been made to explain to this user how Wikivoyage works, yet Veillg1 appears determined to turn to accusations at any disagreement. The incredibly detailed reply comments indicate that this site is being used by Veillg1 as a battleground, not a travel guide. If the user can commit to abstaining from these actions in future and following the guidelines set in the above discussion, I'd be OK with allowing the continuation of the account, but I haven't really seen that yet, and right now I'm still in support of an indefinite ban, pending the conclusion of this discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and Wikivoyage talk:Listings. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Like TT, I haven't been previously involved or observing Veillg1's edits, and my impression is similar to SC's. The first times Veillg1 was reminded of any policy, it was quite understandable that they had missed it. It is reasonable to question the policy after having been made aware of it. It is also reasonable to forget about it once in a while.

However, when reminded again, Veillg1 doesn't apologise, but belittles the point raised (see the comment to SMB) and repeats their arguments, even when having been told several times that this is the policy until it is changed. They are not interested in changing the policy – they never asked about how to do that on their user page. They just went on ignoring policy.

Finally they ask how to change it, perhaps as a last way out. I very much doubt they will respect any consensus from such discussions. I hope they will, but they need to make a very good – and compact – argument for me bothering to rethink what has been discussed before several times, seriously considered and worded with care.

I think what is needed now is for Veillg1 to show a different attitude. Then I might listen to their proposals.

–LPfi (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veillg1: I appreciate that you've avoided controversial edits in the past week or so and hope that means you've been taking some time to reflect. That's good; take the time you need. It's probably useful for others to take some time as well.

That said, a number of us have made comments and have asked questions of you here, and at some point we'd appreciate your answer. It doesn't have to be immediate, but this conversation will remain open and unresolved without further participation from you eventually.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veill1g has now been blocked for three days for claiming asking them to follow policy is harassment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason why they were nominated for a userban earlier. We hoped that Veillg1 will start a discussion on the relevant talk pages, but no, they continued on with deliberately violating policy (see User talk:Veillg1). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about just giving them a longer block? I think it would be their second block, right? 2 weeks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion; Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban calls for a 2-week back, but I'm not sure how effective blocks and warnings are. Even after the endless warnings and the 3-day block, they've still chosen to defy the five points you and GZ listed in July. Oh, and I'm not going to forget that they called my actions "akin to the Russian political regime where good contributors to society are coerced and jailed for holding progressive views". Like the last nomination, I'm still in favour of an indefinite ban. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this does not come of as canvassing, but pinging all participants of the previous discussion: @Veillg1, Ground Zero, ThunderingTyphoons!, Twsabin, SelfieCity, LPfi: SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am continuing to have a conversation with Veillg1 on their talk page. They make good contributions, but their contributions require so much clean up. They continue to add encyclopedic details, and write overly-long "Go next" entries, and then there are a lot of style issues. Unfortunately, they are not receptive to suggestions for improvements, but fall back on threats to stop contributing as much. While I value their contributions, it seems clear that it will be on their terms. Cleaning up after them takes a lot of time and effort. Ground Zero (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I've given up on regularly cleaning up Veill1g's work. In fact, out of the five points raised last time, Veillg1 only stopped unnecessarily including redundant disambiguators. They still continue to (quoted from the previous discussion):
  • include postal address information
  • persistently include overly verbose, minutely detailed encyclopedic content
  • include information that is relevant to residents, but not usually to visitors
  • add a plethora of unnecessary images
Also to Veillg1, I will not change my stance until you apologize for that ridiculous Russia comparison. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Veillg1, how do you appraise the work of your colleagues when they make changes to your additions, like those described above (removing postal codes, reducing verbosity and nonpertinent information, removing unnecessary images, etc.)? Do you see the end result as an improvement? Would you say that it's good work that's being done – or not? Twsabin (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First impressions stick. The previous user ban nomination was my first impression of Veillg1, and it wasn't a positive one. What I took from the outcome of that nomination is that this user is a serial time-waster (that is, they waste other people's time). They may well have good intentions when it comes to editing, but they aren't overly interested in working with others, listening to feedback, or following the rules. They offered the bare minimum of participation in the previous ban nomination, and gave up responding once the questions and comments started to nudge towards possible solutions. Time wasted. Back in November 2021, SHB2000 and Ground Zero started pointing out to Veillg1 the very same editing issues enumerated above, but a whole year of reminders, warnings and arguments has passed without any change in behaviour. Time wasted.
I'd support an escalation of user blocks per Ikan Kekek in the hope of modifying this behaviour, but wouldn't be at all surprised if it ended in an indefban.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we proceed with a 2-week ban on editing mainspace (i.e. a namespace block) as outlined per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits, then? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has essentially died out; Veillg1 also hasn't edited since Nov 6. Could it be safely assumed that they've stormed out of the English Wikivoyage and likely won't return? That would mean we wouldn't have to take any action this time. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging all participants of this discussion @Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero, Twsabin, ThunderingTyphoons!:. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with no action being taken at this time, with a high degree of ambivalence. This discussion doesn't appear to have resulted in a consensus to ban. I think that things should not operate under a strong presumption that someone will not return if they've been inactive for several days, irrespective of circumstance. Still, a two-week block in a situation where there is some reason (not a strong presumption, but still a presumption) to believe that the editor won't edit in at least the similar period doesn't seem absolutely preventative; but if the editor edits again in the following few weeks, restoring currentness to the issues discussed here, a medium-length suspension could be immediately instituted as there seems to be a consensus for this. Twsabin (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that I didn't specify this, but Veillg1 also mentioned that their "participation in WV(English) has become minimal". On the other hand, I just noticed that they haven't edited any WMF project since Nov 6 – in that case, they may return. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict:] Right. And I think in the future, the ordinary sequence of timed blocks should be imposed when needed, and without further discussion. My feeling is that we needn't spend time discussing these things when the system of timed blocks is available to us and could be sufficient to deal with the situation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disappearing while you're the subject of a UBN is pretty standard, so there should be no assumptions made about Veillg1's likelihood to return. I support an automatic two-week block for the next offence.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do, too, but my point is that that could have been done without discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TaxeryBravery

User appears to be a troll. See their contributions Special:Contributions/TaxeryBravery for more information. Roovinn (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lejeune

Isn't here to contribute positively to the project. Please see Special:Contributions/Camp Lejeune for more information. Roovinn (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Roovinn. Indefblocked.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Roovinn (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations/Archive_2019-2022&oldid=4924215"