User talk:87.75.18.140

Hello, 87.75.18.140! 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 Wikivoyage:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub.

By the way, have you considered creating an account here? While you can absolutely keep contributing as an anonymous user, it promises a bunch of benefits, and no obligations.

Thank you very much for helping out on the Taipei pages and for your edits to the Magadan article!

One small request: Whenever you post to a talk page, please sign your post by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end of it.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are very welcome but if you are going to be active with clean-up activities, particularly deleting entries, please create an account so discussion of any disagreements can be correctly carried out. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I've not deleted anything, only marked the page as spam to be deleted by more experienced users. 87.75.18.140 17:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You have deleted listings. I agree that they were touting entries and should be deleted but really this sort of, generally positive, activity is best done as a named user so the contribute knows who to address in case of disputes. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That's what this talk page is for, then. 87.75.18.140 07:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Why would you be so strongly opposed to creating an account? You don't have to enter personal information to sign up. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Top 3 reasons to not sign up for a user account:

1. The power of Wikivoyage is that it can be edited by anyone on the spot. You see a mistake, you click edit, you fix it. As far as I'm aware, signing up for an account does not unlock any additional functionality, even unregistered users can make new articles etc.
2. There is a small group of unpleasant individuals active on the English Wikivoyage that makes it a sport to ban new users, even if they don't do anything wrong. I'm keeping an eye on Recent Changes, and saw user accounts being banned just for adding a map marker or a city to a region -- actions clearly not malicious. As long as the WMF doesn't take action against said unpleasant individuals, there is no point in registering an account just to see it banned at the first edit.
3. I've collected too many user accounts on too many different sites over the years, it's too difficult to remember all those user names, email addresses, and passwords. The fewer, the better.

But that's just my opinion of course 87.75.18.140 16:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one who banned those accounts, but I did so for good reason. Those accounts are not helping Wikivoyage; they're the product of an individual or individuals who have added copyvio after copyvio to Wikivoyage, rarely communicate, and when do communicat tend to use bad English. We know what we're doing, and we won't ban someone without a reason. If you're interested in reasons, see Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress and Wikivoyage:User ban nominations. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The one thing Augusto Pinochet and Che Guevara had in common was that they both claimend to know what they were doing... Turned out to be a point of view not shared by the rest of the world.

When the next victim gets banned with questionable reasons, I'll post it here for reference. 87.75.18.140 16:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I know who you mean. You mean people like this individual. He's not a victim; trust me. You can think what you like, and I'm in no position to ban you or otherwise punish you for that, but we do what we do on Wikivoyage for a reason. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, this IP account has done nothing remotely approaching a reason for any kind of temporary block, let alone a userban. I'm not seeing why that would change if you registered, but it's totally up to you whether to register or not. I was an unregistered user for at least 2 years before I registered. There is one substantial difference between IP users and registered users, though: IP users can never become autopatrollers; every IP edit has to be individually patrolled. And a smaller difference is that it's literally impossible to thank an IP user with a click. But as I say, it's up to you. Best, Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to User:JamesSoller16 specifically, but they are certainly a good example of a random editor being banned for no good reason. Their edit history shows a single edit where they added relevant and factually correct (if we're assuming WP is correct) to a listing. How can that be a reason for a ban?? Also note how you tried to justify the ban with "vandalism" as motivation, although the log clearly proves the added content is a good faith edit. Such a blatant lie and cover-up would make anyone think twice about registering an account, I think. 87.75.18.140 22:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I also find it inappropriate (and that's an understatement) to target specifically editors who when they communicat [sic] tend to use bad English, as you phrased it so ironically. I have no idea which part of the world you're from and it's none of my business either, but you might have noticed that not every human on this planet has English as native language. English is actually my third language, after German and French. If you're waiting for native English speakers in most of Russia, China, or Africa to write articles about their home towns, I fear you'll have to wait forever because there are very few -- if any. If Oxford English is your gold standard for English language quality then you'd also need to exclude contributors from India, the worlds largest democracy, whose English is often far from perfect. And the lower half of North America speaks third grade English, so that's another 300 million potential editors you might want to get rid of on this wiki.

Regardless of opinions, if you want to improve the language quality then use the edit button to correct errors rather than deleting entire contributions or banning the users outright. Every language teacher will confirm that the best way to learn a language is to try and get corrected if you make mistakes. What do you possibly hope to achieve by reverting every sub standard quality edit? Either the user won't understand why it's reverted and simply post it again, or they will be disappointed by the wiki system and lose their motivation to contribute. Both outcomes hurt the project, and so does your attitude. 87.75.18.140 22:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Restoring Telstra edits

Hi. As I told you, you can hold the views you like.

On the other hand, however, restoring edits by vandals is unacceptable. If this continues, you could receive a ban. The job of admins is hard enough without contributors causing problems for us. Please just keep your views as your own and contribute to the website without trying to do the job of admins. Thank you.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

IP user, firstly hello, and welcome!

If you are not familiar with Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive#Telstra vandal, please read that before continuing this argument. I understand where you're coming from, because if I were in your shoes new to a wiki, and saw innocuous-looking edits earning a permanent ban, I'd be alarmed too. Perhaps we can do better at communicating with good-faith newbies like you about this type of vandalism, to avoid putting people off.

But I must say to you that, without knowing the extremely long history behind this particular vandal (he's been around here for six years now - longer than many Wikivoyagers, including some of our admins!), you're not fully informed, and your judgement on the matter is flawed. I mean that in the nicest way possible. It is good for things to be questioned by new Wikivoyagers, as without fresh ideas from other corners of the world, this wiki would stagnate. On the other hand, it is also necessary for newbies to know when to listen and defer to experience, rather than force an issue.

Each member of the admin team was instated by a community vote, so each of us were considered trustworthy and competent enough to handle complicated matters of vandalism. The actions we take against long-term vandals such as Telstra are on behalf of, and sanctioned by, this community. As for your comparisons with dictators, for your information each of us can also be held to account by the community and have our admin privileges revoked, if it is felt we are abusing our power. This has happened at least once during my time here, before I was an admin, so please be assured that the system works. Any issues with admin conduct you have, don't hold back from reporting it, as it will be taken seriously and dealt with fairly.

But, for now, a request: as you are apparently new to this community, it would be appreciated if you could follow the community's lead and place some trust in us as admins, that we know what we're doing, and that we have the best interests of this wiki at heart.

Very best wishes. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaboration, I see where you're coming from and follow your reasoning.

I absolutely agree with you that it is paramount that every admin can be held to account by the community, and that's precisely where it's going wrong here. I pointed out above that User:JamesSoller16s contribution can hardly be considered vandalism, yet they were banned with that motivation. User Selfie City refused to motivate their actions based on facts, but rather resorted to threatening to ban me if I were to continue asking questions.

Since you referred to my previous mention of dictators, ironically, a few characteristics of dictators are:

1. Sometimes democratically elected by a majority vote (think of Mugabe and even Hitler to some degree)
2. Claim to be doing the right thing
3. Refuse to justify their actions
4. Threaten and/or otherwise attempt to silence opposition

I do see unsettling similarities with Selfie City's behaviour, but probably that's just me being a problematic "newbie".

I wholeheartedly support actions taken against vandals, but so far, I have seen no evidence that User:JamesSoller16 is a vandal, nor that their single edit is harming the Wikivoyage project. And until Selfie City can provide any evidence of wrongdoing of this user, I would say they are innocent until proven otherwise. Conveniently for Selfie City, since they were banned, they are unable to defend themselves in any way...

Before drastic measures such as a permanent ban are considered, I think users should at least be given a warning on their Talk page. Selfie City does not seem to feel the necessity to justify any of their actions on talk pages of victims that are being banned, I have the impression.

87.75.18.140 22:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

On an unrelated topic, following up on the odd statement that this supposed "vandal" is already a problem for 6 years: wouldn't the only conclusion that can be drawn then that whichever "countermeasures" are being taken are ineffective and need to be revised? Procedures and rules exist to be adapted to real world situations, that's why so many constitutions have amendments. Either way, banning users without clear evidence and a solid justification is unacceptable. Transparency is key to the operation of a wiki. (my experience is with OSM, where mostly the same principles apply) 87.75.18.140 22:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a "they" — on Wikivoyage, most of our dedicated editors try to use the gender of the person in question and avoid Wikipedia's vague pronoun usage; of course, you probably wouldn't have known my gender, but I am willing to admit that I am a "he". I use s/he when I don't know someone's gender, but that's just the way I handle that aspect of the English language; do what you like.

Secondly, JamesSoller is not talk page blocked, so he should be able to respond on his talk page if necessary. If his talk page usage is blocked, I will remove that, as we give Telstra the right to use talk pages.

Third, we used to take an open view, as you recommend, but we have abandoned that idea because it has proven to be ineffective. On Wikivoyage, we do whatever we can to discourage vandalism, which means that we don't go through "sockpuppetry cases" and the like. We deal with our users justly and firmly — I have many times been criticized for taking wrong actions myself, and reprimanded, and almost everyone on Wikivoyage has received similar treatment somewhere along the way. I cannot speak for us all, but I personally believe that some discipline is necessary to keep a website like this one from going into the gutter that it could have gone — I believe that if Fram had been a Wikivoyage user instead of a Wikipedia admin, and he had been bullying people in the same manner, we would have reprimanded him or removed him completely, because his treatment of some individuals was quite improper.

Wikipedia is good site, but it prides itself on "calling a spade a spade." Here, I think we actually do. While I know that the term "law and order" has been ridiculed, politics aside, I think law and order stands here and rightfully so. We're a site with a broad spectrum of varying philosophies and views, but we stick together to uphold a complex policy system, along with rules and guidelines, to make our community one that is special for us. I hope you find it a good experience, but honestly, I think that calling me a dictator is a poor start. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're so sure about the legitimacy of your actions, why do you continue to refuse to provide factual evidence of User:JamesSoller16s wrongdoing? Which evidence links them to whichever vandal you have in mind? Which Wikivoyage policies did their contribution violate? I have read a lot of Wikivoyage's policies, but haven't found any that explicitly forbids adding local language translations to the "alt" fields of listings. 87.75.18.140 10:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

As a community, we have taken a decision to revert all edits by the Telstra vandal, regardless of their content. The reason for this is that, on balance, the edits are either nonsensical or counterproductive (e.g. they create a new article with two lines of text that they then abandon and never edit again, then they create another account and add a redlink to an article that doesn't exist, then they create another account and add an irrelevant line of trivia to a third article, and so it goes on...) In addition to this, the person avoids 99% of the attempts to communicate with him, so it is impossible to open a dialogue to request he change his behaviour, to find out if he needs us to help him in any way, or to verify if he even understands that his edits are problematic and unwanted. So we ban his accounts on sight, and undo his edits.

That is why Selfie City took the action he did, and he shouldn't be attacked for doing so. I support and agree with his action, which was in line with our policies for block-evading vandals. While the edits you saw may look innocuous to you, when you have been dealing with somebody for years, you get to know their 'tells'; you don't always need to see vandalism to recognise a long-term vandal.

As for your suggestion that our current attempts are not working, I partially agree. They are working in that this vandal is not allowed to litter thousands of Wikivoyage articles with his mostly bad edits. We are protecting our articles from vandalism very successfully, and not just against this one guy. Where we have failed utterly, is in dissuading this person from trying to edit Wikivoyage. He doesn't seem to know his edits are always deleted, or if he does know, he doesn't care.

Now if you have an idea for how we could dissuade the person from editing in the first place, you'd be welcome to share that idea on the talk page of the 'user ban nominations' I linked above. You are also welcome to challenge the overall policy of banning Telstra on sight, at the same page.

But I would ask you to not continue to pursue your argument about this particular ban anymore. We have both done our best to explain the actions to you, and if we have failed to convince you or be entirely reassuring that's because all three of us are fallible humans. I feel that, for my part at least, a continuation of this discussion on your talk page wouldn't be constructive. By all means raise the issues you'd like to with the wider community on a project space talk page; I may well take part if I find the time (currently in France) but this will be my last word on the matter here. All the best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)