< Wikivoyage:User ban nominations


Archives for Wikivoyage:User ban nominations

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

Kochi Taxi Service

See here. Here to promote a service on Wikivoyage. Roovinn (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's touting and out of scope for a user page. I deleted it. Perhaps they won't return and a ban is then unneeded. If they return, then let's see whether they continue touting. –LPfi (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. Roovinn (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aniketrana8321

Please see Special:Contributions/Aniketrana8321

On the 14th of March, this user was blocked for touting. They came back again and engaged in the same behaviour. Roovinn (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I've seen that many users from India come to this site to promote themselves/their businesses. Roovinn (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done – blocked accordingly for 2 weeks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ibrahim.Itavera

See User talk:Ibrahim.Itavera, user contributions. This individual obviously will never be willing to respect or attempt to convince a consensus of anything. I propose an indefinite block, so that we no longer waste time arguing with a ranter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This user believes they have had a terrible experience with Wikivoyage. I think that they and Wikivoyage should agree to disagree, and go their separate ways. I don't see any opportunity to repair this relationship, unless the Wikivoyage community were willing to give this user carte blanche to edit as they wish, and the Wikivoyage community never does that. Ground Zero (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They are clearly WV:NOTHERE as they don't want to respect consensus and other contributors, show them the door. I'm also okay with a 6-month block, need it be. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question: They are currently blocked for 3 days. Should we lengthen the block to last as long as needed for this user ban nomination to end? Would that be 2 weeks? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd leave that block alone and let them continue editing after their block ends until this is resolved. I have adjusted the block so they can comment on this page, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he starts making unilateral changes like he used to again, I think the next block in the escalating series of blocks will be for 2 weeks. The 3-day block I gave him was as per the escalating series of blocks policy. The dog2 (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're against a user ban: Why do you want to continue giving them scope to rant and rave about how this is a dictatorship and the consensus against them is due to bigotry, etc., etc., etc.? You read their remarks on their user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's best to let them have a meltdown and not get too riddled by it. When there is consensus for a ban (I hope that arises soon – should we post to pub + RfC?), it should hopefully come to an end. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted to the pub. Post to Rfc if you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a user ban. I'm just stating that the next in the escalating series of blocks is 2 weeks. This time I only blocked him for 3 days as per the standard escalating series of blocks. So I don't see the need to extend the 3-day block, because if he does the disruptive edits again, the next block is 2 weeks, which will give us enough time to complete this discussion. The dog2 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I assume you are right that they are beyond hope, I think keeping to procedures is of greater benefit than the nuisance of having to revert a few edits and do a new block a few times. Let them make the decision on a ban easy for us. If they change their ways, either a ban is unnecessary or we can discuss what to do at that point (and I won't have any empathy with them if they try to find out just how far they can go). –LPfi (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool :-). I'll do RfC in just a sec. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not uncommon for enthusiastic new users joining a wiki to have a bit of a rough start when their edits clash with how things are typically done on that wiki. It's usually a combination of them not taking the time to familiarize themselves with the way the wiki ticks and the regulars reverting them not communicating in a newbie-friendly manner. That can absolutely be resolved and turned around, but there are two things that need to happen: 1. Someone from the community needs to reach out, de-escalate, explain what's going on and give advice on how to move on. Maybe this happened a bit late, maybe the words weren't quite right, but clearly there was an attempt. 2. The newbie needs to relax, eat a piece of humble pie, try to understand why things escalated, and show intention to work along to resolve the issues.
I think this probably could have been handled better from the community side in one way or another, but ultimately that wouldn't have made any difference. Ibrahim.Itavera may have the best intentions, but I think it would be better for everyone if they spent their energy elsewhere - maybe start a travel blog where they can write what and how they like. --El Grafo (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to try your hand at once again explaining consensus to them, and learn the hard way how you'll be responded to. If you think this could have been handled better, read Talk:Europe#Istanbul and the revision history of Europe (and several other articles where they edit warred) and see whether you still think so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek just FTR: when I write "could have been handled better" that doesn't necessarily mean it would have been worth the effort (actually quite the opposite, if you follow that sentence to the end). --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ their talk page, which is just a page of misconstrued fluff at this point. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The discussion at Talk:Europe#Istanbul was started early on and they did not miss that discussion. If they can "relax, eat a piece of humble pie, try to understand why things escalated, and show intention to work along to resolve the issues", then fine (they have 3+14 days for that). I think those who participated from our side did their part at least as well as can be expected. Ibrahim.Itavera just thought they can have it their way. –LPfi (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ibrahim has now been inactive for 3 days now. I think it's quite safe to say they've left us but I don't want to call the shots too early. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's no longer inactive. Does anyone else want to try to explain to him that we don't use words like "paradise" on this site? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I called the shots a bit too early. I'm tempted to direct them to Wikivoyage:Words to avoid, but I feel they have had enough of me (plus you and Mx Granger) and would just respond with the same fluff that they have. Maybe it would help if an uninvolved user (@LPfi, Ground Zero:?) could direct them – hopefully we might see a change of heart but I'm not holding high hopes. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate User:El Grafo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot about them (sorry, El Grafo). I too nominate El Grafo. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for that, didn't I? OK, I'll give it a shot later ... El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, not worth the effort. El Grafo (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this one's talk page is full of juicy textbook examples of contempt and defiance of policy and consensus, too many to count. Maybe they should be reviewed and quoted on appropriate policy articles, say, WV:NOTHERE and WV:Tone and many others. The volume and intensity of aggression displayed are memorable. Ibaman (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User ban nomination

I invite your participation in a new user ban nomination. If you have any comments about the nomination, please make them there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

107.9.140.157

This user has created several copyvios, hoaxes (for road routes that do not exist), and deliberately misleading information to several articles, demonstrating no sign of change either. I don't see much hope when they have refused to respond to any of the talk page messages directed at them. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if this requires a formal user ban, rather than just blocking at sight like Brendan. Meanwhile, block for a month. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm subconsciously treating this like an ANU thread, even though this isn't such. I'll change the block later today if there are no other objections. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, they've just earned themselves a 2-week block. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

70.68.168.129

This user is being disruptive and unwilling to listen with their use of AI in discussions. Can someone else look at their behavior since I've been directly involved? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the incivility on Special:Diff/4860194 and Special:Diff/4860189 are grounds for a ban, but it's best for an uninvolved admin to impose it. Any takers? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've revdel the revisions. But it's a bit sloppy since I have to redact the text after someone replied to it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it looks good to me (tho the hammer would be nice). Cheers for that. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see Ibaman already blocked them for a month before. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now blocked them for three months for the talk page message. I haven't been involved lately, and I don't think my previous comments on their talk page can make me regarded as partial. –LPfi (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, LPfi. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I didn't recall having blocked but went to check the history, which clearly shows that whoever is generating this AI interaction is not here to build a travel guide. Ibaman (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dog2 (topic ban on politics and sensitive issues)

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

  • Support. The dog2 has been wasting the community's time for years with political debates on talk pages and often inaccurate or unnecessary political claims in articles. When The dog2 works on accurate travel advice instead of political controversies, his contributions are typically good, so my hope is that this ban will allow him to focus on those contributions and avoid wasting the community's time and misinforming readers with the political stuff. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per discussion linked above, and a long list of instances of disregarding WV:Tone#Be concise and engaging in unnecessary encyclopaedism, too well-known to bother mention. Ibaman (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This has been going on too long. It shows a deep lack of respect for the commhnity, and is disruptive to our purpose of building a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I didn't weigh in fully, I'll do so now. The dog2, I echo what Mx Granger said about your contributions elsewhere – however, when multiple users have asked you to step back on politics and sensitive issues, you need to do instead of doing the same thing over and over again. It's gone for several years now; how long is too long?
    During the duration of your topic ban, I suggest you take a through step back and learn to check what you're adding into mainspace. Take this time to learn why the community feels the way about your contributions to politics and respect sections; by the time your topic ban is over, you should have learned by then what to and what not to do.
    For everyone else – how long should the topic ban be? I would opt for 3 months given the length of their disruptive behaviour, which is enough time to self-reflect on their behaviour, but it can always be extended if the conditions of the ban are broken or if the disruption continues after the ban ended. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 01:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say 6 months. And I support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    6 months also works with me (or whatever everyone thinks is enough time for The dog2 to self-reflect). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 04:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support 6 months. Ground Zero (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    6 months, no objection. Ibaman (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although some of the additions by The dog2 are warranted, he clearly cannot judge when he should be sceptical toward his sources, how much his observations can be generalised, what conclusions can be drawn and when the warnings just aren't necessary. Please, The dog2, if you think something needs to be mentioned, tell it on the talk page instead and let other editors decide. –LPfi (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The dog2: Ground Zero (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Philippines#Questionable_addition. I'm not sure a ban is warranted; discussion & warnings should be enough. On the other hand, I have not followed things closely & will not raise an objection to the apparent consensus to ban. Pashley (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that "discussion & warnings should be enough", but they haven't been. You can see on User talk:The dog2 how various editors have been cautioning them about adding false information and controversial opinions back to at least 2017, and have repeatedly asked them to desist from editing Respect and Politics section. The dog2 ignores the warnings and discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing: how long should the ban nomination go for? I think 7 days is enough to form a clear consensus, but I'd be willing to hear to other suggestions. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits says: "If the proposed suspension of the user's editing privileges is supported by two administrators, and there is a broad consensus for the suspension, after 3 days the suspension will go into effect." This seems to me to be very fast. As The dog2 is an administrator, I would err on the side of a longer discussion period, like the 7 days you suggest, unless they make any edits to Respect or Politics while this discussion is underway. In that case, I would implement it immediately. Ground Zero (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable, as he is aware of the discussion. If he thinks that a longer period or more voices are needed, I don't see any problem with that, but I doubt that would change anything. –LPfi (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do, of course, have until then to own up and things may turn around, but LPfi's suggestion is more than reasonable to me. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's a consensus that I am to be banned, there is nothing much else I can do but accept it. The dog2 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it'll be 7 days by the end of tomorrow, how shall we lay the ban conditions? I'd say:
  • no edits to anything politics-related.
  • no edits to "Respect" sections.
  • no edits to anything that can be deemed sensitive.
  • this ban only applies to mainspace; talk page discussions are still allowed.
Does this sound good with everyone? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sensitive and politics-related issues" is quite vague. I assume "anything sensible" refers to things that could go into Respect, not everything somebody could find sensible.
The wording is OK if we trust The dog2 not to try the limits and others not to mind grey-area edits. If somebody at some point feels that his edits are too far across the limit, then there needs to be further discussion. Perhaps we should trust him and the community, so that we don't need to start rule lawyering.
–LPfi (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works with me. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the wording, but I do not trust The dog2 not to try the limits. They have not shown respect for the community's opinions on this so far. If there is a clear violation of our intent here, The dog2 should be subject to escalating blocks. If there is a grey-area edit, it should be reverted with a reference to the topic ban. Ground Zero (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That or possibly the topic ban gets extended by 1 month for each violation. If it gets to a breaking point (where it gets extended to, say, end of 2025), possibly a block or desysop nom. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think GS's suggestion is fine. Still, we don't want to argue whether an edit is a step into the grey area. When considering a revert or block on this bases, one should ask oneself "should this be commonly understood to clearly be a step into the grey area or to clearly be a violation of the intent", not "do I think this is …" (somewhat analogous to the "knew or should have known" in Finnish law). –LPfi (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, for the record, as of yesterday there were edits about Hong Kong cinema, which IMHO are not "political" or "sensible" per se, but I would call them "encyclopaedic and unneeded", and qualifying as "testing the limits" and "not showing respect for the community's opinions". But maybe I'm being too grumpy here. Opinions? Ibaman (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they're okay because they aren't political or sensitive and don't exactly waste the community's time the same way their edits to Israel or Russia have been. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the block is about unreliable information relating to politics and Respect. The encyclopaedic and unneeded stuff may be irritating, but I think we are going too far if we include that. Most of the marginally relevant stuff added has been about sensitivities and is thus covered. I don't see how we can disallow "unneeded additions" without rendering the edit rights unusable – as the premise is that there are problems with the user's judgement. –LPfi (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Done – the topic ban has now been enacted until January 12, 2025, 23:54 (UTC). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MON

In the last week or so, there have been several influx of editors from Mongolia. According to User talk:Tenkyuu216#c-Tenkyuu216-20240805140700-SHB2000-20240805121200, it is known that this is due to a course on Wikipedia. We don't know who is organising this course on Wikipedia at the moment. There is a list of all users involved at User:A09/LTA/MON, which is being continually updated by myself, A09 and Ikan Kekek. Ibaman has also been involved with some deletions.

There are several issues with this group of contributors, with the main one being lack of communication. We hadn't gotten a single response back from this group until User talk:Tenkyuu216:

  • obvious copyvios, including uploading files onto Wikimedia Commons with fake licenses.
  • using AI to write articles in its entirety.
  • creating articles that very clearly fail WV:WIAA.
  • occasionally the use of disruptive socking (while this is not banned on enwikivoyage, the use of it for disruptive purposes is)

Several of these users are already blocked. Clcrystalbolor (talk · contribs) (including 202.126.91.173 (talk · contribs)) is indefinitely blocked from editing mainspace for creating AI-generated articles until they respond to their talk page. Indrabattsetseg (talk · contribs) is for, too, but sitewide – EPIC has also globally blocked the user until 09:21, September 5, 2024 for cross-wiki abuse. Chimgee13 (talk · contribs), Enhchimeg13 (talk · contribs) and Hunshuvu.16 (talk · contribs) are all blocked for being CU-confirmed socks of each other, while CU data shows that Oyungerelsh (talk · contribs) is also highly likely to be the same person.

However, many other users – including the organiser – is not blocked. Many of us are starting to lose patience with this group, so I propose that:

# The organiser of this group (when we find out who they are) is indefinitely banned from editing the English Wikivoyage. Appeals for a community unban may be made after 12 months.

  1. Any user undertaking this course after the ban on the organiser is enacted is also indefinitely blocked. Appeals may be made at any time if they promise to edit constructively. A standard templated message is placed on all users' talk pages. This means that the users who have stopped making edits will not be blocked.
  2. A "one strike and you're out" approach is adopted for users with a track record of copyvios and/or disruptive behaviour on other wikis, in particular, Wikimedia Commons.
  3. Socks deemed likely or confirmed as determined using CU data (on m:SRCU) is indefinitely blocked unless they claim otherwise.

I'm aware that this is long, but it's time to recognize that this course has been a clear gross and net negative for the English Wikivoyage and that this will only continue to cause frustration and work for others to clean up if action isn't taken sooner than later. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banning the organiser and anybody undertaking the course after that sounds like a punishment rather than a way to solve the problem. If we find them, that would allow communication. Not listening and continuing with disruptive behaviour would be a cause for a block, not the behaviour of the past or just participating in the course. A quick block for copyvios and other disruption is sensible, but if "out" means banning, then I don't agree: I suppose a two-week block would be effective enough. For socks, I don't see it as necessary to block them, other than if we see reason to block the master account. I assume these socks are created as a means to get around blocks at WP, by people who just try to get their work (their assignments) done, without knowing our rules. –LPfi (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's exactly the problem – they're using Wikivoyage as a host space for their assignments with little-to-no regard for Wikivoyage policies and conventions. I don't see how a timed block will help if they're not answering their talk pages. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are a couple of issues with this. First, is there any evidence that the organizer - whom we don't know who they are - is actually editing here? If they're not, it would be pointless to ban them from doing so. Second, if we find out who's organizing this, we need to attempt to communicate with them. I think it's fine to block users who don't reply to user talk page messages, and it's fine to summarily delete all the articles that don't fulfill wiaa, use stolen images, or are written by using unedited AI (not sure how you're able to figure that out). We could adopt a "one strike and you're blocked for 3 days with a user talk message to that effect" and then block for increasing periods when users don't reply to user talk page messages. In terms of disruptive socks, I absolutely support banning them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for crediting me, it means a lot to me :) I support the group ban, but do agree with Ikan that banning the group leader is a bit pointless if they are not editing. I believe we could block the users per w:en:WP:DUCK concept if we were to accept one. To anyone who is willing to comment on matter of this ban nomination, I must point out the crosswiki activities as well: they have uploaded tens, if not nearly hundred of files that were all pretty much copyvios. A group block would not only show a strong response to further groups but it could also play as a precedence case that would easen group blocks in the future. The group showed no interest in communication when contacted, nor here nor on any other Wikimedia project and a failure to comply with multiple Wikivoyage policies even after warnings is a good base for a block. Best regards, --A09 (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the bit about the organiser as per consensus here. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's for edits by the "Telstra vandal" or "Brendan", who has been around for ten years or so. While not writing swearing words or deleting text, they are contributing text or random factoids that has little to do with travel, sometimes copied from other websites, obvious stuff etc. The person is extremely persistent and above all ignore attempts to contact them. They're using IPs from Australia, usually geolocated around Brisbane, usually by operator Telstra, and at some point they created tons of sock accounts too. Ypsilon (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. Thanks for the explanation. Will take a look into this case. Best regards, A09 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you're bored you can start typing "User talk:Brendan John Williams" in the search bar and pick some of the talk pages of the socks. It's really like counting the wagons of an endless freight train... --Ypsilon (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of their contributions are also racist or racist-adjacent, like this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia also states the theory that the Bantu people may have originated in Nigeria. It also lists another theory. It seems to be a topic of interest to Africans and those who study Africa. The Nigerian origin assertion seems to be disputed, but what is the racism controversy? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if it's not racist-adjacent, it's at least irrelevant in a travel guide and somewhat oddly phrased. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that disputed information isn't good for articles. I had some teachers from Africa when I was in university who would mention Bantu people, Bantu languages, "Bantu noses", etc. very openly and casually, so your comment surprised me. I spent time trying to look up if there is controversy in other countries about this word or if genomics itself was controversial and couldn't find anything, so that's why I asked. I haven't come across this user (these users?), but the proposed actions against them seem reasonable. so I will add my Support to bring my comment back to the topic at hand. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I sometimes react to what I perceive as the tone of an edit. Thanks for putting it in a clearer context and showing me that I was wrong to react to this edit as racist-adjacent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both the bans & the template suggestion.
But, while it certainly seems to be time to deploy the ban hammer, it does not seem necessary to smash too hard with it just yet. Mass bans of indefinite duration would be excessive now, though it may come to that later. For now, just a light tap of the hammer -- three days or a week -- to get their attention, plus the templated message. Pashley (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you, except in the case of socking and repeat offenses from people who are determinedly ignoring their user talk pages. But in most cases, the usual increasing blocks can be tried. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: 14 days now, clear consensus to enact this. I will abstain from creating the standardised template message, however, until we get another one of these users who resume editing. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chealer

New account that thinks they can tell project regulars what does and what doesn't constitute as consensus at Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia#c-Chealer-20250606171200-Piotrus-20230926082000 in a manner that constitutes as POV pushing. I suggest an indef block per WV:ONESTRIKE as they are already blocked on enwiki, frwiki and frwiktionary, but Ikan Kekek and I are way too involved with that discussion. //shb (t | c | m) 06:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. //shb (t | c | m) 06:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for now. Let's see whether or for how long they continue with this behavior before we subject them to increasing blocks, let alone a ban. If they continue for a week or two, we can revisit this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but they're already blocked on three other projects for this exact kind of behaviour – I don't see why a fourth would be any different. But I think LPfi's solution is likely the way forward, where that is their last warning and any future instances of poor behaviour result in an indef. //shb (t | c | m) 10:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • [edit conflict] Comment: Starting one's carrier at a site by discussing policy is not the way to show good faith. They have few edits in article-space, and even those include format changes (listing → running text, "rectifying" time from 12-hr to 24-hr format) – but thanks for the update. I would advice them to leave policy, guidelines and format tinkering alone and just contribute information, and I do support some kind of formal warning to that effect, but I don't think there is a need for a ban yet. Either they comply or then a ban could be the next step. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not start my "carrier" here discussing policy. I started by wasting hours trying to access Vancouver’s tourist information centre, since:
    1. Our directions were not so clear, and led me to be redirected from the wrong employee to another wrong employee. I was then told by another wrong employee that it was on the second floor of the building but that I was too late since the office closed at 17:00, and it was precisely that time after more than an hour of wondering.
    2. The hours were outdated (or wrong), the actual hours being much more limited.
    3. The centre did not really exist anymore (which, based on everything I witnessed, has probably been the case for years).
    This led me to fix a section of Vancouver, and I used the opportunity to further improve it slightly. It’s only after noticing others degrading the resulting section that I directed attention to a template and "policies".
    Besides, the vast majority of my contributions to Wikimedia projects are volunteer, and the vast majority of Wikivoyage contributors are volunteers. I would "advice" you let volunteers decide how they contribute and direct your own efforts to productive work, whether that is fixing or completing user documents or improving policy, depending on what you most enjoy tinkering with. My contributions to Wikivoyage are far from a career for me; I am an environmentalist and workaholic who rarely travels, and I am precisely using the opportunity of a rare career pause to visit friends. I would already be proud of my Wikivoyage contributions if I could stick to fixing major mistakes I spot when consulting Wikivoyage.
    Also note that good faith should be assumed. Contributors are expected to act in good faith, not to show good faith (whether or not doing that is even possible). Chealer (talk), 9 June 2025
  • Close, but not yet. They were blocked on enwiki 10 years ago and frwiki a year ago, so they may have matured. They did start with some useful contributions on Vancouver, then went headlong into comments on policy. I hope that this is taken as a final warning (before increasing blocks) and we get some more useful travel contributions (but just follow policy at the moment). AlasdairW (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bans are intended to deal with problematic behavior. Wikimedia projects are based on collaboration. If you disagree with someone, the constructive way to contribute is to express and explain your disagreement. Coercive measures (bans in particular) are not intended nor supposed to be used for censoring purposes.
The policy you invoke is about vandalism and irrelevant to this nomination (or any other nomination). Blocks are meant for aggressive behavior or violations, nor just discussions. Bans are last resort measures, which are not justified with mere ad hominem attacks.
For your information, my account is far older than yours. But neither the age or permissions of our accounts should matter to this debate. Your proposal should be justified with actions carried by the accounts you wish to be restrained. Even rectifying or disagreeing with contributors which have older accounts or more permissions is not considered as proper justification for blocks. Chealer (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about in regard to ages of accounts? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't get how permissions have anything to do with it. //shb (t | c | m) 00:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read. All I wrote is that neither the age nor the permissions of accounts should matter. Chealer (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000 visibly implied that my account was less valuable or important because he considered it "new". My account's age is irrelevant to this proposal (and even if age mattered, it would make no sense for his "new account" to tell a senior account how to behave). Chealer (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the point completely. Nobody said your account was less valuable and I didn't say you were unimportant. If you'd actually read my comment properly, I was clear that you're not a project regular and the fact that you can barge into a wiki that you aren't a local community member of and tell regulars how to interpret policy is what constitutes as disruptive behaviour. What you say about me or any specific editor is irrelevant because this entire thread is about your behaviour. //shb (t | c | m) 06:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to get it. I am a "local community member" just as much as you are. Some of us are more concerned about quality than quantity; a higher local edit count doesn't make you more of a member than others. Some of us are more interested in language than travelling and may direct more of their efforts to other projects; that doesn't mean they aren't community members. Some of us have a life outside of Wikimedia, and are still members despite lower edit counts.
All contributors are allowed to discuss the same; in fact, we value discussion. Chealer (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment of yours just gives me validation that a ban needs to happen sooner than later. Your behaviour very much falls under "other malicious editing" and the fact that you even brought up account age just goes to show how unfamiliar you are with this project's customs yet you think you can tell project regulars, who know the ins and outs of this wiki's policies, to say how we interpret this wiki's policies. //shb (t | c | m) 00:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing others of "malicious editing" or any misbehavior without providing evidence constitutes a personal attack, which goes against policy.
You brought up account age yourself in the very first sentence of this section, which you created less than 20 hours ago. Frivolous accusations and weaponization of processes/policy can also constitute personal attacks and lead to imposition of sanctions on your account. Chealer (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"New account" does not always imply age, it can also imply experience. //shb (t | c | m) 07:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts have no experience; contributors do. Even if you had written "New contributor", your comment would still have been discriminatory; any given contributor should not be censored any more than you are, regardless of its account’s age, permissions, or its ethnicity, gender, age, experience, etc. Chealer (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some things never change, eh. //shb (t | c | m) 07:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to your attempts to use ad hominem attacks, they could actually be stopped. This is my final warning to stop these. I advise you to take it seriously, since―whether you like it or not―on that topic, we do have an actual policy, which can be enforced, should reason not be enough to change. Chealer (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the fact that you've taken zero accountability for your actions and doing the same behaviour that got you blocked on enwiki. I fail to see how "some things never change" can be interpreted as an ad hominem attack; if anything the reasoning from your frwiktionary block also applies here ("Contributions perturbatrices ; comportements non collaboratifs ; croisade personnelle. N’est pas là pour contribuer sereinement, mais pour se confronter à chaque personne qui ose croiser son chemin", or translated into English, "Disruptive contributions; non-collaborative behaviour; personal attacks. Not here to contribute serenely, but to confront every person who dares to cross their path."). If multiple wikis are having an issue with your behaviour, the problem does not lie with us but with you.
Also ironically, the policy you quote can be used just as much against you as everything else in this discussion. //shb (t | c | m) 09:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a huge amount of time-wasting! I suggest for all of us to stop engaging in any discussion with Chealer, and I definitely support an immediate block for an initial period of 3 days, which will likely eventually turn into an indefinite block. Who has time for all this useless chatter? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • blocked indefinitely for threatening "sanctions" = WV:NOTHERE. Ibaman (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ibaman. :) //shb (t | c | m) 22:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, good call. While I opposed a permanent ban at first, I feel a sense of relief. Nastiest troll we've dealt with in a long time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking it was heavy-handed, but I think we know where this would end up. Chealer would not become a productive contributor. Making threats so early in their time here is a sure sign of WV:NOTHERE. Ground Zero (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I'd not support an indef ban at first, but they have been doing this on various wikis for 10 years now and almost delves into cross-wiki abuse territory. It's very likely that were Chealer to ever become blocked on Commons and enwiktionary, they'd be globally locked. //shb (t | c | m) 01:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was right to ban. Although I had initially said not yet, I was proved wrong by the contributions that they then made on this page. Their claim to have contributed for so long also showed that the ban on en WP was not some childhood misadventure. AlasdairW (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. A newbie may question policy like Chealer did at first, but they should be at least somewhat keen-eared towards regulars. A newcomer fighting the community is unacceptable – and referring to long experience counters the newbie good-faith defence. Either WV:NOTHERE or a person who cannot direct their energy into productive contributions. –LPfi (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salgo60

User has been here since late March, and is pretty much confined only to Stockholm Archipelago Trail and its sub-articles. Their comments on that article's talk page strongly hint at them not being here to build a travel guide:

  • Showing little respect and consideration to Wikivoyage's style, as expressed by @Ikan in this comment. Furthermore, Salgo seems to have a fixed vision of what the articles in question should be. Any good-faith additions that do not fit that pre-formed mould get blown out of proportions as if they were made to shift the primary focus of the article (Diff 1), or get discredited as being wrong or bad advices (Diff 2, Diff 3).
  • The user has been pointed in correct directions regarding the above, but seemingly disregards feedback and instead tries to cement themself as a figure on authority as they manage a Facebook group (Diff 1) [...] and no one has inquired about [that]. Their experiences based on completing all sections of the trail I have no such issue with.
    • I guess the Facebook group stuff could also be seen as promotion of themself/their business, but I'm not convinced of that at all. I think it's purely brought up to cement themself as a figure of indisputable authority.
  • Treats Wikivoyage as a battleground. Most of their responses on talk pages are unnecessary and could be avoided by adding one or two lines in the article. Instead, they go as far as to compare individual editors' contributions as equal to the Scots Wiki debacle. (Diff 2).
    • See also this thread where they seemingly try to spin a rewrite of information they have added themself as being entirely wrong. The passage is lacking information which wasn't there to begin with, and the issue could be resolved without a talk thread by just adding the missing information to the article. This reads to me as wilfully seeking conflict.
  • The user floods talk pages with information that should just be added into the article directly, seemingly only doing so to seek confrontation (Diff 4, Diff 5), which also serves to illustrate that they have little intent in working collaboratively. Other times they have assumed the reader to be completely moronic, just so they can drive home a point (Diff 5). They close off that edit by showing that they obsess over one user's edits by bringing up something I said in a different thread, seemingly just to spit on it again. Similar to the comparison to an edit of mine in a completely different thread (Diff 6).

I don't know what a suitable response to this behaviour would entail, so let's just simply assume banishment from this project. If there's a better action to take, then there's this discussion for that. I mostly just wanted to post this nomination so I can give closure to my involvement in that set of articles, because interacting with Salgo is nothing but infuriating to me at this point. I have added some of their diffs, but there are other comments of theirs that exhibit the same problems. Please, read the relevant talk page yourself and draw your own conclusions.
― Wauteurz (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. ― Wauteurz (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support indef, appealable in 6–12 months, on the basis of CIR (it's a Wikipedia essay, but the core concepts apply here as well). I do not believe temp blocks will help in this instance and the number of times Salgo has crossed the line (especially the scowiki comparison) is way too many for a temp ban, and the benefit with an indef block is Salgo is the one who needs to prove they've changed their behaviour instead of a block automatically expiring. //shb (t | c | m) 09:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For additional context, Salgo was also blocked on svwiki before (w:sv:Special:Redirect/logid/9056047) for "Nätmobbning" (which if Google is to go by, it translates to cyberbullying), more recently on Wikidata in 2024 (d:Special:Redirect/logid/669327445) – both of which are on par with the scowiki comparison. Once is forgivable, twice pushes the boundaries and thrice is where it becomes indefesibly unacceptable. //shb (t | c | m) 09:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given their exit statement, I am now entirely convinced that an indef is the only path going forward. No indication of why Wauteurz even had to warn them in the first place, and the Hamlet quote at the end is the cherry on the top. //shb (t | c | m) 10:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The exit statement really enforces my suspicions of them not listening to any of the feedback and justifications they've been given by me and others. Hell, [...] and perhaps then you can explain why anyone would need to rent a car or boat to walk the trail only re-enforces that Salgo has not read anything I have written since I've explained and defended those additions multiple times in different wordings. He also once again is trying to cement themself as an authority. I don't question their first-hand experience, but I take issue with how Salgo uses it to only further their own narrative and dismiss additions of others that don't fit their own vision.
    The agenda bullshit is just insulting. I have explained my actions clearly and I don't think that those have been problematic at all when it comes to our style and policies. I refuse to defend myself any further to them. The last chunk of the reply is just dramatised crap that I refuse to even consider addressing.
    ― Wauteurz (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Of course. I've seen this movie over and over again, with new protagonists checking in every year, sometimes every month, here on Wikivoyage. Ibaman (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This happened very quickly. I didn't even get a chance to wake up and express an opinion before they were indefinitely blocked. I would have suggested that their block be dialed back to no more than 2 weeks so that we can deliberate, but this looks like a snowball decision. It's still irregular, though, isn't it? And the problems with the articles and non-articles they added still have to be dealt with, but now without any possibility of their helping. They did finally delete a bunch of irregular links to Google and Commons, showing that they were not completely impervious to remarks about their flouting of Wikivoyage guidelines, although they've behaved very poorly in general, as documented in links above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their talk page messages to Wauteurz IMO warrants an indef block. They have proved that they cannot act in a civil and collegial manner. //shb (t | c | m) 21:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really arguing that they shouldn't have been blocked indefinitely, just that the first step should have been to block them for the duration of the user ban nomination's consideration. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This did go by quickly, I'm definitely with you on that, Ikan. I highly doubt that Salgo would have been helpful at all in resolving anything. Judging by what he's since added to his WikiProject about our project, Salgo really seems to live in a world where self-reflection is a luxury afforded by the lucky few. I have explained to him multiple times why having those additions is valuable on our project, but he didn't seem to understand it, possibly because he didn't want to understand. There's only so much cooperation you can expect from people living in their own bubble.
    ― Wauteurz (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it must be mentioned, my thinking was similar to yours, IK, until I checked in this user's talk page how they reacted to the ban nomination, and thought again. Ibaman (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the block threads on other projects, but I note that the cyberbullying block was 2hr, which I think shows that the incident was minor.
The user has severe problems with communication and seems not to understand how to cooperate, but I think those problems are genuine for them, not a sign of bad faith. I understand those who feel insulted by their comments, but I also think that they might be just signs of frustration, not anything personal. w:Wikipedia:Competence is required, which SHB linked above, using an acronym, is indeed relevant, but the question is how understanding we can be towards a person who tries to contribute useful content, but just doesn't have the skill to cooperate on the expected level.
Being interested only in a few articles, or a specific region, is generally no problem. In this case it makes it easier for those who just don't want to cope with walls of text and the other problems to just ignore them and the articles that they have created.
Our guideline on how to handle this kind of conflict (Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Last resorts) says that "attacks on or harassment of other editors" should be met with escalating blocks. I see no reason to indefinitely block the user less than 5 hr after the nomination. Some might find that this is a snowball case, but I don't think it is. The only block that I can see on sv-wp, where they have been quite active and shown the same problems, is the one 2-hr block.
–LPfi (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the mention of their Facebook group as an attempt to gain authority. Rather, they said that nobody in that group have inquired about boats, kayaks etc. – clearly a means to try to tell us that the perceived problem is minor. LPfi (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think they showed bad faith? I have to wonder what someone would have to say for you to see bad faith. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I'd assume you would also agree with me that going around on multiple projects, removing mentions of Wikivoyage because of their indef block on multiple projects is quite blatantly in bad faith while also against local policy (Wauteurz and I are currently dealing with it). Relevant discussions are at d:User talk:Salgo60#Q131318799, d:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Q131318799 and w:en:Talk:Stockholm Archipelago Trail. Haven't gotten to dewiki and dawiki yet. //shb (t | c | m) 23:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I also saw them engaging in bad faith here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question is how much we are willing to take to accommodate a productive user who cannot act otherwise. But removing mentions of Wikivoyage as revenge for a block nomination is indeed unacceptable – I cannot believe they couldn't have abstained from that. Can you provide some diffs (as judgements on this page should preferably be based on own observations rather than trust in fellow editors' assessments). –LPfi (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: Sure – d:Special:Diff/2360725564, d:Special:Diff/2361168537, w:en:Special:Diff/1295660765, w:en:Special:Diff/1295697519, w:de:Special:Diff/256994763, w:da:Special:Diff/12052922 and c:Special:Diff/1043913217. //shb (t | c | m) 09:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Following one of the linked edits, in an edit summary, they say "Wikivoyage Its not good enough it doesnt focus on the people doing the trail". That doesn't seem like revenge editing, but a possibly honest assessment, and as they were blocked and thus cannot improve the Wikivoyage article, the reaction is understandable. Although it certainly isn't the wiki way, it does not prove bad faith. I still think they should be allowed to return according to our guideline, with this block changed to three days.
I don't see there being any major hazard in them given another chance: if the use their editing rights for revenge, then they should be blocked again quickly and possibly banned. I hope they would instead help by explaining the problems they see in the article at the moment. Their contribution has indeed been valuable, and it would be a pity if the article would stay misleading because we misunderstood something and don't let them explain where we got it wrong.
–LPfi (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against Salgo being given a second chance, granted that they return with a better understanding of Wikivoyage's style and purpose and position themself better for cooperation, instead of throwing insults about intent and cognitive abilities around. Their unwillingness to understand others' intent and Salgo's authority-based argumentation is a brick wall when it comes to cooperative efforts. In my experience, Salgo argues only to be proven entirely right, and compromises seem out of the question. I don't doubt that Salgo means well for the trail and could (with correct guidance) produce quality content, but their approach to discussions and cooperative efforts needs change before I'd be willing to support a return.
― Wauteurz (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I don't think there is going to be a big change (they have been on sv-wp since a long time), but I hope that they at least could refrain from direct attacks and insults. –LPfi (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me this person looks like one of the best new contributors we have had in years. They have created something like 20 articles on a topic that is clearly of interest to travellers, mostly well-written & properly formatted. Yes, they have got some things wrong & made some dumb comments, but as I see it nowhere near enough for a ban. Pashley (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: have you ever supported a user ban or a permanent block of a productive user based on their refusal to act collaboratively or other types of nasty behavior (including racism or antisemitism)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly not, unfortunately, I'm afraid (I've only gone back as far as 2013; I'm sure 5 is enough to prove both your and my point). //shb (t | c | m) 07:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was my recollection, too, and I think it's relevant in considering their viewpoint on any one user ban nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah :/. Especially also because bans operate on a consensus model rather than votes so the argument that they created 20 articles is irrelevant (totally ignoring for a moment that those 20 articles are riddled with problems). //shb (t | c | m) 07:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are riddled with problems, but I don't think that argument is irrelevant; it's just that being productive while acting nasty to people who want to work with you is not OK on a wiki. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Pashley, they did research ArticCynda's "obviously racist comments", and wrote, "Please either apologise & refrain from doing such things again or expect to be blocked." (8 Aug 2018 comment). Like Pashley, I thought we could work with this user and get them to come around to our way of doing things. I was wrong, and based on this experience and others, I now have little tolerance for trying to keep this type of contributor involved. Ground Zero (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we have had examples in the past of contributors "being productive while acting nasty to people", and we have not succeeded in getting them to change. I love new content, but people who insist on contributing only according to their own methods turn Wikivoyage toxic. They do not make it better. We have to protect our community. Ground Zero (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Salgo60 is different from those others, and I don't think they turn WV toxic as long as they keep to the articles they created themself. Making those articles confirm to WV style requires a few of us to manage communication with them well enough, but I think it is doable.
    The question is whether we want to accommodate them, by not taking offence from their way of posting overly long talk page messages and often not listening. If just knowing that a user is given such extra leeway is bothersome to people, then we should prioritise our existing community. Accommodating a user like Salgo60 is possible only if the community at large can accept any (implicit) special measures required.
    Anyway, I don't like the idea of banning a user because of the vibes people get. There is nothing in our guidelines that justifies a ban, only our predictions do. Even with a good crystal ball, using it for a ban makes it easy for trolls to tell about the cabal.
    –LPfi (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations/Archive_2023-2026&oldid=5092596"