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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ThunderingTyphoons!: I agree with my colleagues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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