User talk:

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello,! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. New users are also welcome to post any questions or concerns to the arrivals lounge. If you want some practice editing, please do so on our graffiti wall. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here. If you want to contribute with information about the place where you live, see Wikivoyage:Welcome, locals. Additionally, I'd recommend you getting an account. I've got to admit but I edited for several years without logging in onto en.wikipedia which I now regret. Cheers, SHB2000 (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you ArticCynda?[edit]

Hello. Please would you confirm whether you previously edited Wikivoyage as user:ArticCynda? As you know if you are him, the community is currently discussing whether or not to lift your userban, which is far from a fait accompli, as a lot of people remain undecided. It would greatly help your case to (a) immediately stop editing Wikivoyage while the discussion is ongoing (b) be completely upfront and honest now and at all times moving forward as to your identity. Since you've been online in the last few minutes, I will take a cessation of activity without a reply here as tacit acknowledgment of your identity. Awaiting your reply, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And to be completely up front myself, I will as you probably gather be blocking this IP address if you reply with the affirmative, or if you don't reply at all, but I will keep your talk page open as I think (or at least hope) we will have stuff to discuss soon.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi TT, this is indeed the AC you thought it was, as you said yourself: "who else signs posts as AC?". Thank you for your thoughts, and also for correcting the regions to departments in several articles — I seem to confuse these every time again. I feel like I did the right thing to help the teacher and her students get started, so saying I feel guilty for the edits I made today would be lying.
I have been following the discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:User_ban_nominations#User: closely, and to show my goodwill, I also suspended any further edits to Dagestan and its articles, as I wrote on my talk page about a week ago. Alas, that message was quickly deleted from my talk page, but I have respected the promise unilaterally anyway. There have been no further edits to Dagestan, or at least not mine.
So it's hard for me to believe you when you say "we'll have things to discuss soon" as long as my talk page remains blocked and any messages I post there are being deleted — a dialogue needs to come from both sides, and so far any concessions or goodwill have only come from my side... but maybe that's just my interpretation, who knows.
I'm not actively monitoring all of the IP talk pages, not because I'm not committed or don't care, but simply because there is no technologically practical way to do so. So my AC talk page is probably the best place to have discussions.
All the best, AC
Thanks for replying.
I don't expect you to feel guilty, but obviously can't agree with you that you did the right thing. Fact is, you're banned from editing Wikivoyage.
To a cynical eye like mine, not editing Dagestan doesn't demonstrate goodwill; it demonstrates that you know further edits to that part of the world will be recognised as yours and reverted, and so are pointless. A demonstration of goodwill that I would take to be real would be for you to have the patience to stop editing for the duration of your ban, or at the very least while the discussion about you is ongoing. You still have it in your power to commit to this going forward.
For my part, I will oppose any lifting of your ban without an agreement (and actual undertaking) from you to not edit any part of Wikivoyage outside of this talk page for the duration of the ban.
Your request for access to a user talk page seems reasonable to me. You've got this page; put it in your bookmarks. It's on my watchlist, and I will ensure that your current IP continues to have access and that comments of yours made to this page (by this or another IP address signing as you) won't be removed.
(The revocation of access to your old user talk page was decided by consensus, which I can't unilaterally overturn. Any proposal I could make to the community to grant you access there would distract from the main topic of discussion - whether or not to lift your ban - and unnecessarily drag out the process of reaching a decision. So, as disappointing as that might be to you, I'm going to have to decline to pursue that.)
Have a good night, and please just think about what I'm asking of you. Regards, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi TT, I understand your point of view and as I've said before, I still prefer to resolve the conflict. However I must be honest, too, and after reading the toxic thread at Wikivoyage_talk:User_ban_nominations#User: that is filled with insults ("fuck the guy") and threats ("delete his work") it should be no surprise that my motivation to engage in a constructive dialogue is evaporating rather quickly. I can't think of many treaty negotiations in history that were successful while one party kept insulting and threatening the other... I'm fairly thick-skinned, but generally respond poorly to threats, especially those that are a blatant violation of the wv:ttcf policy.
I have the impression a few people are no longer here to build a travel guide and would rather escalate the conflict than resolve it. Reading how my technical assistance to the French teacher and her students yesterday is now being framed by some as a "provocation" must be the most laughable attempt at discrediting my work so far. I didn't see anyone else offering assistance to the teacher and her students yesterday.
Your request to stop editing for the duration of the discussion is reasonable, so effective immediately I'm suspending any further contributions for as long as the discussion takes. I've also read your proposal and it deserves a proper answer, will address it when I have more time tonight to share thoughts on the matter. — AC
TT, I've carefully read your proposal and I think it's a fair pathway forward, so I'd be willing to discuss the terms of such an agreement if that resolves the ongoing conflict. My concern is regarding the arbitration of the agreement, and more specifically how the terms of the agreement can be enforced in practice. Clearly, a third party that is not involved and unbiased is needed for arbitration. After all, despite honouring an agreement like the one you proposed myself, I can't prevent others (vandals/trolls or anyone else with interests in undermining the agreement) from making edits and signing with 'AC' or impersonating me in another way. In fact, since IP addresses are anonymous by definition, anyone could claim any edits from any IP editor at any time are my work whereas in reality they are not — and I would have no means to prove otherwise. Looking at how the discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:User_ban_nominations#User: is evolving, some people would likely not miss the opportunity of blaming me for random vandalism or other unconstructive behaviour I'm obviously not responsible for (as has happened in the past already). So I'd be curious which measures/arbitration mechanisms you propose putting in place to prevent such false flag operations from disrupting the agreement. I'm assuming your proposal is in good faith, but without proper measures, as you will probably agree, it feels like a trap. Looking forward to your response. — AC
The thing is, you're banned. That's it. SHB2000 (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, SHB2000, and as kindly explained by André in the discussion thread, the result is that there are now thousands of edits scattered between hundreds of anonymous IP addresses. A consensus appears to be developing that there is nothing objectionable about these edits, as you can see for yourself in my recent work to Dagestan, Murmansk, etc. Several people however insist I have malicious intentions and have voiced concerns that the anonymous nature of these edits makes it very difficult to police them. So to address those concerns, the proposal being discussed is to concentrate all edits under one account to make it easier for them to be reviewed. All the best, AC.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @ThunderingTyphoons!: It's been a month since my last edit to Dagestan and its articles, and the discussion on the user ban nominations talk page has been going on just as long. I recognize and appreciate your efforts to find a solution for the stalemate situation that's been wasting valuable time for nearly 3 years now. The debate has been valuable in the sense that it confirmed what has been clear to most editors — including myself — for a long time, and it probably also confronted a small group of editors with a rather inconvenient truth.
I gave you my word that I would refrain from further editing as long as the discussion is ongoing, and self-evidently I also respected that gentlemen's agreement. However every discussion must end at some point. All facts have been on the table for a while so unless there is anything else you'd like to add to the debate, I propose we draw the obvious conclusions, and continue doing what we're here for: writing a travel guide. What say you? — AC

Erm, no, since no one agrees to unblock you immediately. And there's User:Ground Zero and myself who think you should be indefinitely banned. SHB2000 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The indefinite ban option has been attempted before, and we're having this conversation because it didn't work. How about trying a more constructive approach this time? — AC
The discussion is to unblock you after a current block of 9 months or so, not immediately. I don't think any course of action has been decided on yet. We don't owe you any special consideration, so be patient. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Ikan here. SHB2000 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, and I would add that the indefinite ban didn't "not work" in some abstract sense beyond everyone's control; you chose to disregard it because for some reason you felt the community consensus didn't apply to you. The only way I can see my proposal (or some variation of it) as a solution is with your co-operation and agreement, because that helps to demonstrate that you no longer see yourself as apart from or somehow "above" the decisions this community takes.
To that end, I appreciate your observance of the agreement during this past month, and genuinely regret how long it's taking to reach a decision (not least because it's a huge time drain for everyone), but agree with the others that you have to be patient and must accept that there's no chance of your block being lifted for several months yet, and still a strong possibility that the indefinite block will remain in place. I understand that is inconvenient to you, but that's the bed you've made for yourself over the past three years.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just one question. An IP address made some edits a few hours before and after you posted to your talk page yesterday. Was this you or not? 19:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A very good question indeed, and one that may be asked countless times in the next years and perhaps even decades to come, who knows. These look like they could be AC edits, but are they really? They haven't signed as AC yet, but that doesn't mean anything, it could still be AC. There is no way to know until they sign their edits, but even so, anyone could sign as AC even if they're not AC. You're also an anonymous user, you could be AC yourself. Are you? Your edits sure share similarities with those made by AC, because there is nothing wrong with them. Suspicious. I think we should delete everything, just in case.
One could almost get the impression that a witch hunt for anonymous IP editors is not the most rewarding or fruitful way to spend time on Wikivoyage, but it's a sacrifice some are apparently willing to make just to stop productive editors from adding quality content to our travel guide. — AC
User: has been editing under that IP for 5 months now. Plus, he's from Eastleigh and not from Exeter. But as TT said, it's too bad that you made the bed as what you did in the last 3 years. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 23:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plus, I've had to do a third round as we still can't decide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 23:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And additionally, the focus is now on w:WP:GRP now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 23:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I couldn't help noticing that you 'forgot' to include the 'immediate unblock' option in the third round, the choice of members User:Nurg, User:TheDog2, and others in the first round. Perhaps the lack of participation could be explained by a certain bias in its setup? Repeating a poll over and over again until you get the results you want might work eventually, but it's neither democratic nor respectful towards members who have previously donated some of their time voicing their opinion on that matter. — AC
Wikivoyage works by consensus, not voting. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 05:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Any accounts or IP addresses that claim themselves as "AC" or are suspected of being you will obviously be blocked. But if they're not you, then by all means post a message here and we can ask a Checkuser to verify.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Although if a different device using a different browser in a different location evaded, then the Checkusers might not be able to tell. 16:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite frankly, that we won't be able to tell with 100% certainty whether a given IP address is you or not is a problem of your own making. But if the checkuser system is good enough for the wider foundation, then it's good enough for us.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks. 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can tell, there are three options:

  • Indefinite block - To keep AC blocked forever. AC has evaded their block multiple times, although the edits have always been positive, which makes me think this is just their way of saying “please don’t choose this option”
  • Six-month block - Like the Standard offer on Wikipedia, for which the terms are simple:
1) Waiting six months without evading the block
2) Promising they won’t carry on with the behaviour that got you blocked
3) Not giving reasons for people to object to getting unblocked
  • Immediate unblock - To unblock AC after letting them apologise and making them promise they won’t do it again. This would probably require someone to check AC’s contributions to make sure they were all positive.

Unblocking AC would require a certain amount of trust; they would have to stop evading and, if they did evade, admit when they were doing so as TT said above. 16:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WTF?? Who wants to applaud the success of a serial block evader keen for spotlights? What a joke. Nuke him and his work. Ibaman (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"serial block evader" is a fantastic quote to emphasize one's dedication and courage to keep contributing quality content even under difficult circumstances. I can hardly think of a better one-liner to put on a custom T-shirt. — AC
Do you still think you didn't deserve to be blocked? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: It could be possible that this user is using a VPN, as the location of his IP address has changed several times (London, Bristol, Exeter). But since VPNs (mainly) only change IPv4 addresses, it could mean that if the IPv6 address mentioned above is this user, that could mean that London is his real location. 06:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Actually, different IP locaters are showing different locations, so it is probably just the IP locaters not being able to pinpoint exactly where he is. 06:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ - A few weeks ago, my IP was based in Tamworth, a place over 500km away from me, but I'm still using the same computer and in the same location. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And after all, User:Ground Zero and I can have our "we told you so" moments. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!: I'm surprised it suddenly matters what I think. Anyway, I do agree that I deserved to be blocked because I indeed overstepped boundaries that I should not have crossed (regrettable actions for which I have since apologised). I was blocked for 3 days, according to the block policy, which was the correct course of action at the time. However at that point some individuals I won't name here decided that the policies of this project no longer mattered, and rather than following up with a 2 week and then 3 month block as outlined in the policy, I was immediately banned indefinitely. In further violation of the policy, talk page access was revoked indefinitely without discussion or consensus, and for reasons that have never been explained. Nonetheless, I recognise there was a reason to be blocked and therefore I imposed a 2 week block on myself, in line with the applicable policy. After expiration of those 2 weeks, and again in accordance to the block policy, I reflected on my mistakes, outlined commitments to make sure those mistakes couldn't happen again, and resumed editing. None of this is a secret, it can all be found on my talk page. So how can there be confusion about it? — AC
Additionally, the block policy clearly states that an indefinite ban should only be considered "(...) when a contributor has made it clear that they're not interested in the site's goals (...)". As my edits clearly show my contributions are in line with this project's goals, an indefinite ban was unjustified and (at least in my opinion) in violation of the policy, although it does leave some room for interpretation. Curiously, the policy page also warns that unjustified bans "(...) might make an enemy out of a potential friend", but being the philanthropist I am, that fortunately didn't happen, and I've consistently contributed constructively. — AC
Where are the diffs for "I imposed a 2 week block on myself" and "After expiration of those 2 weeks, and...I reflected on my mistakes, outlined commitments to make sure those mistakes couldn't happen again, and resumed editing."? I'm afraid you're talking me out of trying to help you return, because even without naming individuals, you're still blaming others rather than taking responsibility for your actions over the past three years or so.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly the reason why've been going for indef this entire time. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am taking full responsibility for my actions over the past three years, User:ThunderingTyphoons!, including the content added to any of the hundreds of articles edited in that time span, as well as the dozens of new articles created. These contributions were my sole responsibility, so if there are any concerns about their quality or accuracy then I'm the only one to blame. Fortunately, I have yet to receive a single complaint regarding the quality of my contributions, and although editors like User:LPfi understandably advised double checking just to be sure, to the best of my knowledge no one has been able to point out objectionable content. I have not seen any article space talk page discussions that disputed or challenged the quality of content I added in over 2 years. And even if there were such discussions and disputes, I would still take responsibility for them. — AC
So there are no diffs? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't post links to the relevant diffs because someone set up an edit filter that disallows a keyword in the URLs. But I'd recommend you to read the section "Conclusions" which outlines the self-imposed time-out and future commitments. — AC
Yes, there's an edit filter that prevents your username from being typed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoever set up that filter clearly did not want any talk page diffs to be posted, that much is clear. I've been looking for any discussions that led to that filter being created but I can't find any. Have you had any luck finding a community consensus for it, User:SHB2000? — AC
I'm not here to blame anyone, I'm here to write a travel guide, and for that I have put mistakes of the past behind me in the best interest of this project. — AC
But the fact is – you're community banned. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000: as indicated above, this was a clear violation of the relevant policies. According to the block policy it should have been a temporary block, not an indefinite ban. — AC
I wasn't here that time so I don't know what happened then. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're not going to get very far trying to argue that your expulsion from the site for disgusting, outrageous and demonstrably false expressions of bigotry was a violation of site policies, and such arguments, as well as your expressions in this thread of pride in block-evading, only serve to push wavering individuals into the camp of keeping a permanent sitewide ban on you and undoing all your edits. Your best bet, if you want to have the ban ended, is to shut up for several months. Let us forget you, or at least stop thinking about you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
110% agree. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: rather than "trying to argue" I'm merely summarizing undisputable facts to give users like User:SHB2000 who weren't here when this conflict started, the chance of forming an unbiased opinion of their own. I do find it quite charming that you can't stop thinking about me, and your appreciation for my work has also not gone unnoticed. But I think it's best for us both if our editing paths on Wikivoyage don't cross for a while. — AC

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In light of the ongoing debate and discussions, I find it unfortunate and unfair that I am continuously framed as an untrustworthy individual. Those who have done the effort of reading through the "Conclusions" section on my talk page will see that I have kept every single promise and commitment I made nearly 3 years ago. I promised to abstain from editing any articles related to Brussels or Belgium for example, and have since edited none. I also promised to avoid sensitive topics and discussions, and have indeed kept away from talk pages, focussing on editing destination articles almost exclusively. I haven't participated in a single political discussion, have not expressed a single political opinion since I made those commitments. There also hasn't been a single complaint since about any "disgusting, outrageous and demonstrably false expressions of bigotry" that User:Ikan Kekek referred to above being inserted into articles by me. So what's the point of trying to maintain the perception of AC being an unreliable/untrustworthy contributor if no one has found any evidence for it in well over 2 years? — AC

I'll simply let others draw their own conclusions from the tone and content of your remarks while being aware of why you were permabanned and the fact that you have several times evaded the ban and then thumbed your nose at us instead of shutting up about your previous username and just contributing reliable content humbly, which you always had the chance to do had you chosen that path. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is the ban evasion that bothers you, there is only one way to stop it for once and for all: lifting the ban that's causing it to happen. Without a ban, there would be no further need for ban evasion. — AC
Appreciate the honesty, even if it is disappointing. I will be changing my vote to maintain the indefinite ban and not wasting any more time on this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your attitude and mindset are incompatible with a wiki.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@ThunderingTyphoons!: I'm sorry to hear that and find it very unfortunate because the reason we're having this discussion in the first place, I thought, is that we all realised the conflict that has been going on for nearly 3 years is a waste of time and efforts, and should be resolved. Absolutely no one benefits from this conflict — and certainly not our readers, whose interest should be our first concern. I've already shown goodwill from my side — issued an apology, agreed to temporarily stop editing while the discussion is ongoing at your request — and what I got in return is a list of insults at the ban nominations talk page. The only way forward that doesn't result in wasting even more time for years to come is finding a compromise that results in lifting the ban one way or another. I'm still open to any constructive proposal to resolve this conflict, including yours. I do understand that in a project like Wikivoyage that has about a thousand regular contributors, it's impossible to get along with everyone. But as long as we can get behind the shared goals for this project, I don't see that as a problem. I'm not forcing anyone to collaborate with me on specific articles, there are ample opportunities to contribute to the project without getting in each others way, as User:LPfi summarised quite well. In the end, our readers care very little about who wrote the articles, and whether contributions are attributed to Art​icCynda or an anonymous IP address in the article history is almost irrelevant from the perspective of the traveller. What our readers do not want, however, is pointless edit warring (such as the Igls incident) or relevant travel content being deleted as a result of a feud between editors. If possible, I want to avoid our readers from being affected by such further escalation of this conflict, which is for me the most important motivation to resolve it. — AC

While the Telstra guy does make good contributions, we always revert his contributions (ends in 2-4 numbers). The difference is that your being honest (and we well appreciate it) and the telstra guy avoids all communication. (e.g this is one of his gf edits). But as TT said, I sadly have to agree with you're mindset here. But does the traveller care if it's the telstra guy or not? No they don't and you're right but it's the mindset that's letting you down here. Take care, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000: That's an interesting example, I did a quick fact check on that edit and what User:Derren838 wrote is paraphrased from the town's unofficial website (and therefore I'm assuming true). So indeed I see no reason to revert contributions that are of use to the traveller if they can be verified to be accurate. It appears we have a different interpretation of the traveller comes first principle. — AC
But he creates a new account for every single edit that he makes and avoids all communication with us. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’d say there are two things you could do to increase your chances of getting unblocked.
1) Following the terms of the w:WP:SO - do not evade for six months
2) Try the w:Template:2nd chance. Rewrite and improve a section of a page needing improvement on your talk page.
@ThunderingTyphoons!, SHB2000: I don’t know if I’m allowed to vote at User ban nominations, but if I am, can one of you please add my vote as ‘Let the ban be for nine months and then we’ll decide’. Thanks, 14:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are definitely allowed to vote. We've got that page semi-protected at the moment because of a long-term vandal, so I'll copy your comment there if someone hasn't done so already. Sorry for the inconvenience.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: can you please also add User:Ibaman's vote to "block and delete"? They made their position clear in this diff. — AC
@ I think the w:Template:2nd chance is a solid proposal, and to convince those some editors who have doubts, I'll demonstrate my editing skills by improving an existing article that needs improvement as the w:Template:2nd chance procedure describes. I don't have a good view on which articles would qualify, and since you proposed it, would you be so kind to choose an article that would be suitable in your opinion? — AC
I’d say somewhere near you. If you tell me where you live I might be able to suggest a city. 15:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I live in the Murmansk region in Russia. I'd prefer not to go too much into detail about my location for privacy reasons, I hope that's okay. — AC

I would recommend the Murmansk Oblast article then. Is that alright with you? 15:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Can you update my comment on the User ban nominations to “AC has agreed to the terms of both the w:WP:SO and the w:Template:2nd chance, so I think five months from now would be fair.” 15:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion, that's alright, I think I'll be able to manage improving the Murmansk Oblast article. As per w:Template:2nd chance I'm copying over the existing article contents to the talk page asap. — AC
In fact, there’s one more thing you can do to increase your chances of getting unblocked; apologise for what you did three years ago and promise that you’ll never do it again. 14:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000: On this page, you said “I’m okay with 9 months. But we still have more people for indef and delete rather than 9 months.” If you’re okay with 9 months, and the only reason you’re not going to change your vote to nine months is because more people have voted for indef block, I just wanted to let you know that this isn’t true as if you changed your vote, then 9 months would have more votes. 14:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wanted indef but if the consensus was 9 months, I'm okay with it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 21:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000: I see. 05:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ I posted an apology here because even my talk page editing privileges have been taken away, indeed leading to a lot of confusion. Thanks for linking to this discussion on my talk page, by the way! — AC
Although as was mentioned on that talk page, you did not actually sincerely apologise. 19:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, because the apology was in fact meant completely sincerely. I am still truly sorry for my mistakes, and no one wishes they could be undone more than me. So I do apologise for all the trouble I have caused, and also the time wasted in the aftermath. I can't change the past but have learned from my errors, and that includes making sure history doesn't repeat itself. Taking a positive attitude forward, I thought that my spotless contribution track record from the last 2 years would be more than enough to convince even the most die-hard opponents of my good intentions and alignment with this Wiki project's goals, but apparently I was mistaken. — AC


After nearly 2 months of discussion, it appears no strong consensus could be reached, and there are still Wikivoyagers with concerns/objections against an immediate lift of the ban. As surprising as this is considering my spotless editing track record of the last 2 years, I respect that point of view. There seems to be a strong opposition against further block evasion, and without a broad community consensus for other solutions, the technical procedure outlined in w:WP:SO and w:Template:2nd chance as suggested by User:ThunderingTyphoons! and User: seems the only constructive way forward.

The requirements of w:WP:SO and w:Template:2nd chance stipulate that no editing should take place (anonymously or otherwise) for a period of 6 months, after which there must be a commitment to avoid the behaviour that led to the block/ban, and an article should be improved to demonstrate familiarity with project policies and editing competence. As required by w:WP:SO I hereby commit to making no further edits for the period of 6 months, with the exception of the copied Murmansk Oblast article which was suggested as one that needs improvement to comply with w:Template:2nd chance. After that period, I am required to notify an administrator to review the improved article and lift the ban.

Because the 3rd requirement of w:WP:SO is to avoid giving people reasons to object to my return, I feel like it were best not to engage in further discussions on this talk page for the duration of those 6 months — nothing wrong can be said if nothing is said at all.

I thank everyone who contributed to the discussion, wish you all the best, and look forward to resuming constructive cooperation after the procedures of w:WP:SO and w:Template:2nd chance have concluded. — AC

Per Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations/Archive 2021-2023#User: (ArticCynda), your ban was upheld. Drafting further changes to Murmansk Oblast will be a waste of your time, I believe. Sorry. Nurg (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The procedures proposed by the Wikivoyage community have now concluded: over 6 months have expired, and an article assigned by the Wikivoyage community has also been improved (see the improved copy of the Murmansk Oblast article below). Accordingly, I have applied for an unblock request on my talk page because all requirements are now satisfied. Can administrators review the improved article and address concerns below or on my talk page? Thank you for your patience. — Art​icC​ynda 09:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

AC, the "procedures proposed by the Wikivoyage community have now concluded" have never concluded and never will, because the consensus was for an indef ban. And no, none of the requests have been satisfied. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.