User talk:ArticCynda

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, ArticCynda! 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. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, welcome, and thanks for starting an article about Kraainem‎‎. It already looks interesting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the support, I'll keep contributing to my best efforts! ArticCynda (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hotel pictures

Hello, and thanks again for your wonderful contributions to the Sarajevo guide!

I'm kind of doubtful about the 3 hotel photos in that article, though, as well as the promotional-sounding captions of two of those photos. Please have a look at Wikivoyage:Listings#Images:

Images of businesses, including hotels and their bedrooms, should generally not be posted as illustrations inside the section. The only exceptions are if the business is a well-known attraction in its own right (the example given is "The Raffles is an icon of Singapore — the Holiday Inn is not"), or if the image is of a type of accommodation that is unusual and unique to the region. In the second case, identifying the lodgings where the picture was taken by name is not necessary.

Which if any of the photos are of hotels that could be listed in "See" if they weren't providing sleeping accommodations? And if so, what should their captions say? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, after thinking about it, the added value of the hotel pictures is indeed minimal. I read through your guidelines, and agree they would be a waste of paper if the article were printed, so I've removed them from the article by commenting them in source. The exception is Hotel Europe, since it was mentioned in the "See" section under "Taslihan" because it was involved in excavations of that site, so I've left that picture since Taslihan/Bezestan is in the foreground on it.
The promotional sounding caption of Pansion Stari Grad is derived from my own experience since I stayed there for 5 days last summer, so I can personally testify about its from my experience as a guest. In that context, I don't have a problem with using phrases as "affordable and cozy hotel", since it is an opinion that may be of interest to other Wikivoyagers, and is not driven by financial gains (which your link to touting implied). ArticCynda (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for reading and thinking through this, and for your reply. The reason I linked the don't tout page is that the caption sounded like the way a hotel would word its own publicity. I would say that the word "affordable" should be avoided completely, as there is no clear meaning for it (see Wikivoyage:Words to avoid - affordable is one of them), and for whatever it's worth, if I chose to use the word "cozy" for the pansion's "Sleep" entry, I'd still leave it out of the caption. I won't be making a federal case out of this, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Valid point of view, I'll keep it in mind for future edits. I've already thought about the matter of adding hotels, particularly those one didn't stay in themselves yet (i.e. based on reviews on other websites). Is that an acceptable practice? I generally have the tendency to stick to adding attractions etc. I have visited myself, so that I'm sure they're worthwhile. But obviously, since one only stays in a single hotel during a typical city trip, that means "sleep" category lists will fill up very slowly, if at all. What's your opinion on that? ArticCynda (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's definitely an acceptable practice. Cross-checking 2-3 hotel reservations sites for ratings is a decent rough guide as to whether the hotels are good enough to list on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If an article has no listings in a certain field whatsoever, I sometimes look at the city tourism website and check the website of one of the hotels listed there. Sure, it might be a dump or overpriced, but it's better than no listing at all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


That last sentence doesn't show as much kindness as I could wish. We all have our sore spots, and we're not being over-sensitive when we acknowledge that something hurts us, regardless of whether that sore spot is religion, the "correct" border in a disputed territory, or anything else. Could I convince you to remove it or change it? (Please feel free to blank this after you've read it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might have misunderstood the comment, WhatamIdoing, because I do acknowledge that we all have our sore spots and sensitivities, which I of course respect. But I think we can agree that personal issues should never be the reason to censor Wikivoyage for everyone, just because one reader feels uncomfortable about specific aspects of the contents. And that is exactly what's going on now: certain people using political correctness as an excuse to advocate censoring Wikivoyage, because they're feeling sensitive about silly things like historic quotes. If someone feels offended by a line of text that's been written down hundreds of thousands of years ago in some book, then I'm confident saying that not the text is the problem, but the person being oversensitive about it. And given the fact that so much time and energy is being wasted on silly issues like these, it's justified to occasionally remind the discussion of the common denominator principle. Wikivoyage is a travel guide for 7 billion people, and a few individuals with unreasonabile sensitivities or phobias don't have the right to dictate what should or should not be in it. ArticCynda (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not concerned about your intent. I'm concerned about the effect, regardless of whether you intended that effect. I believe that reasonable adults might read your comment and disagree with the idea that a travel guide that is responsive to other people's concerns would have to be one "for Oversensitive IndividualsTM". Being fully responsive might indeed require forking the project to create a "Travel Guide for Atheists" or (yet another) "Travel Guide for Gay People" or whatever, and that's fine. But it would not require creating a "Travel Guide for Oversensitive Individuals". It's unkind to say that people who express concern are being over-sensitive, or silly, or unreasonable, or phobic, or anything else, just for disliking a particular detail. Those are all disparaging words. People at Wikivoyage are allowed to hold opinions without being publicly disparaged for it.
I think that you should just quietly remove that sentence from your comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The effect it has is exactly the one I had intended: stopping the pointless discussion and time wasting by inviting Wikivoyagers to think about the issue using a slighly provocative statement. As you pointed out yourself, it wouldn't be realistic to create Wikivoyage forks for atheists or gays or any other group. But that's not a problem, because it can be therapeutic for those oversensitive individuals to face their issues during the collaborative effort of contributing to Wikivoyage. Anyone is welcome to contribute, regardless whether they're atheists, communists, philantropists or a combination of those: we aim for an audience that is mature enough to have a rational look at the content, and understand that it was not written with the intention to offend anyone. Whoever can't do that is probably too immature to hang out on the internet, and definitely too immature to travel. Which means we shouldn't waste time on those trouble makers, confirming my earlier point, WhatamIdoing. I do miss the days when nobody was ever offended on the internet, because back then it was used solely by reasonable adults instead of sheltered kids... ArticCynda (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure that "stopping the discussion" is the only effect you had with that sentence? From where I'm sitting, it might be altogether too accurate to add "convincing people that ArticCynda is a jerk" to the list of effects you produced. Is that what you wanted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should be no reason for that, since it only phrased an opinion and pointed out an active issue using rational arguments. Of course there will always be individuals who can't take criticism, usually the same immature and/or oversensitive individuals who have been the central issue in this entire discussion, coincidentially. I don't value their opinion enough to care if they think I'm a jerk or not; I'd rather advise them to return to the cotton candy land they came from so their feelings won't get hurt if others criticize their utopic beliefs and world views. ArticCynda (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with pretty much every word that you've said here, and my opinion of your character has declined sharply in the course of this discussion. Claiming that your insults don't matter because they're "phrased [as] an opinion" and "rational arguments" doesn't change the fact that you are showing disdain for people who disagree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please follow the discussions I'm participating in, such as this one for example, or the hotel related discussion right above this one, and you'll see that I'm very open to people with other opinions and can be easily convinced of the point of view of others, if they support their opinion with strong arguments. Good arguments are they key to turn disagreements into consensus. Unfortunately, "I feel offended by anything and everything just because" is not an argument to justify censoring Wikivoyage content. ArticCynda (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO saying that something – anything – hurts you personally is okay. Expressing your dislike for something, regardless of your reason for it, does not mean that people who disagree get to engage in name-calling and try to drive you out of the project (or, to use your words for that, to be told "to return to the cotton candy land they came from").
My complaint about your treatment of other contributors has nothing to do with forming consensus for what belongs in an article. My complaint is about your disrespectful behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree that simply expressing a dislike, regardless of the reason for it, should be anyone's right. There is, however, as I have explained before, an important difference between expressing a dislike for something, and forcing changes onto the Wikivoyage community because of it. If a substantial number of people feel the same way then it may be considered an argument to modify Wikivoyage contents. But that didn't seem to be the case in the discussion with the quotes: if a few individuals feel offended by a few lines of historic text written hundreds of years ago, then is it so inconceivable to you that not the text is the problem but the few individuals themselves? Let me illustrate it with an analogy that can perhaps be easier understood.

I feel very offended whenever I see Comic Sans used outside the comic books it was intended for. I feel repulsed and offended whenever I see ice cream stands with menus or nursery schools with banners using that font. But no matter how much I feel offended by it, something that you may consider silly, it does not give me the right to force those ice cream stands to change their menus. And neither does it give me the right to return at night to vandalize their menus and banners by painting them over in Liberation Sans! No, as a mature adult I recognize that, although I am offended, the majority of society is does not share my point of view, so I do not try to force my opinion on others. Instead, I simply walk away and look elsewhere.

So applying that example to the Wikivoyage case, if a few individuals feel offended by something that the majority of the community does not have an issue with, then simply press the backspace button on the keyboard to return to the previous page, look elsewhere, and the issue is solved. There is no need to try to force changes onto the community and censor Wikivoyage with political correctness as an argument. ArticCynda (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving listings from Brussels to Brussels/Pentagon

Recently, you moved a lot of listings from the general city page to the district article, which is awesome. However, I noticed that you removed more than 80,000 bytes from the Brussels article and then added only about 75,000 bytes to the district article. I hope nothing went wrong there.

Just wanted to make sure you didn't delete some listings by accident while you were moving all that content. I haven't checked over the edits yet, so I don't know the exact details of the edits. Just thought you ought to know. Selfie City (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, thanks for taking the time to report possible errors like this one! Peer review is extremely valuable for a project like Wikivoyage, because it helps to spot mistakes and correct them faster, which minimizes inconveniences for the traveler.
I haven't compared the listing lists in detail (which is difficult since they're not in order), but it is entirely normal that the amount of removed data is larger than the amount of added data since there are numerous duplicate listings between the main article and the districts. So some listings didn't need to be copied because they were arleady present in the district article, I merely deleted the obsolete copies from the main article.
There is a lot more work to do, such as sorting and removing more duplicates (see the districtification roadmap), so if you feel like contributing then don't hesitate! ArticCynda (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that's good. Just wanted to make sure nothing went wrong there. Selfie City (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you wish to address the accusations of antisemitism leveled against you?

I ask you here and I'll take a non-answer within a reasonable time frame (especially if it is accompanied by you editing other articles or even more Jew-baiting) as an admission of your antisemitism. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the decision to block or ban me already seems to have been made, there is no longer a point in engaging in a constructive discussion, nor addressing these ridiculous accusations. Some editors, several of which have possibly never even visited Brussels, sought to remove the warning box of the Brussels/International_District article at all costs against the advice of editors who know the city, and I was unlucky enough to be deliberately pushed into the role of scapegoat to undermine my credibility. I have already made it abundantly clear here that I do not support any kind of racism, and condemn any form of discrimination based on disabilities, origin, gender, physical appearance, or sexual orientation. But that doesn't seem to matter; justifying the removal of the warning box was far more important. And now that the warning box removal has been executed unilaterally, disposal of opposition and/or evidence is only the last anticipated step to prevent the warning box from being reinstated. Nothing I say in my defense can affect that outcome. ArticCynda (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about bigotry based on religion? Do you condemn that, too, or is it OK in your mind to hate Jews and Muslims? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Nothing I say in my defense can affect that outcome." - You couldn't be more wrong about that. The emerging consensus is that you won't be sanctioned if you take two reasonable steps to make amends: 1) Apologise for the edits you made with bigoted content; 2) Immediately cease editing in a bigoted manner now, and at all times moving forward. I think most people would be willing to forgive, but perhaps not forget, if you were willing to take these two steps. Whether you stay or go is still a decision you can make; don't blow it by making the wrong choice. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ArticCynda: This discussion is not really about your views on discrimination, and in particular your views on disabilities, gender, and sexual orientation have nothing to do with it. And what doesn't make sense is that while you say you don't support any kind of racism, you're also adding to articles nonsensical phrases like "defeat of the Jews" that are obviously not aligned with your statements that you do not support racism. The real issue is that you won't address the antisemitism that you wrote into articles. Selfie City (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If when asked to make a statement on whether you are an antisemite, you do not mention the word "antisemitism" or "Jews" once, I think that speaks volumes. And do not play the victim card here or try to portray yourself as some kind of martyr. You must've known this kind of antisemitism wasn't gonna fly. You can still ask for forgiveness and explain yourself, but don't create a problem and then "report" it to us. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I disagreed with the extreme tone used in the warnings against immigrant crime, at least it was related to travel and relevant for visitors to know because their safety is paramount. The question that remains unanswered however, is why were conspiracy-theory like statements about Jews destroying buildings a hundred years ago inserted when 1. upon further research there is no evidence at all for these claims 2. even if it was true, why does a traveller need to know about the ethnicity/religion of the person who destroyed it? From what I know, there has never been a civil war in Belgium between Jewish people and gentiles. Gizza (roam) 02:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Gizza, you hit the spot. Exactly. Why does a traveler need to know that a building destroyed 200 years ago was destroyed by Jews? Who would care about the ethnicity of the person destroying it unless you belonged to that ethnicity or had something against that ethnicity, like ArticCynda seems to have. The point is, who cares about the ethnicity/religion of those who destroyed the building? Why does it matter? ArticCynda won't answer that question. Selfie City (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It almost certainly wasn't destroyed by Jews. If it was and if it were relevant, ArticCynda would by now have provided evidence from a reputable source or indeed any source. The silence here does speak volumes, after all... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: I have already made clear on numerous occasions that I do not endorse racism, antisemitism, or any other type of unjustified discrimination. I have never made comments that I consider of racist or antisemitist nature, although our definitions of these terms seem to vary. See also my example here. For instance
"Black people should never be trusted" — is clearly a racist comment because it targets anyone with a dark skin color regardless of their actions or intentions.
"Beware of groups of young North-African immigrants hanging around metro station entrances in Brussels" — is not a racist comment because it is well known that said groups target lone travelers to ambush and rob them. Specifically mentioning "young North-African immigrants" is okay here since it tells the traveler exactly what kind of threat to watch out for. Not their origin is the target for discrimination (which would be racism), but their hostile actions towards locals and travelers.
"Hamas should be given heavy artillery and/or tactical nuclear weapons to wipe Israel of the map and make the world a better place" — is a controversial statement that I would personally interpret as antisemitist, regardless of my opinion on the ongoing conflict in the region.
"The Jews were defeated by the end of the Second World War" — is not an antisemitist comment because their retreat to Israel in 1948 is a fact.
As stated before, I have made numerous improvements to articles on any continent (including Antarctica) which should be sufficient evidence that I value all countries and cultures. My contributions primarily rely on personal experiences gathered when visiting those places, so I never claimed that my knowledge is infallible; it is inevitable that factual errors sneak into the large volume of content I contribute. If you spot such errors, then the Edit button is the fastest way to resolve them. ArticCynda (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: I'm open to debate about the usefulness of some of my edits for the traveler, if you accept the same for your edits (such as the little edit war you had yesterday in the Brussels article to insert political propaganda completely irrelevant for the traveler). ArticCynda (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) You managed to once more write a ton of words without addressing the specific question I asked of you. So here once more in the plainest of plain terms. Do you have any evidence for your claims about "Jewry" and what makes you think they are relevant in a travel guide? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the person who reverts your edit explicitly says that they are okay with being reverted, it would hardly count as an "edit war", would it? And what exactly is the "political propaganda" in the edit? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you don't see the political propaganda in your own contributions, but at the same time support a ban against me for not seeing the supposed discrimination in my own contributions? This climate of double standards really doesn't get us anywhere. ArticCynda (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do enlighten me. Where is the propaganda? I think I have given you more than one opportunity to respond to the very specific thing this entire thread is about. I have yet to hear it addressed. Not even once did you offer any explanation, source, justification or whatever for your "Jewry" edits. Nor did you explain your flippant tone with regards to the security situation of Molenbeek. Nobody is forcing you to not respond to the actual question. That is something you bring upon yourself. But please before you answer the questions you haven't answered in days or weeks, answer this new question. Where is the propaganda? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Hobbitschuster: the information about POIs I contributed to the Brussels article is based on the combined experiences of multiple visits to the city. I combine personal experiences derived from own visits to most of these attractions with information and anecdotes provided by tour guides, friends and locals I met there, complemented with occasional web searches (for phone numbers, opening hours, and so on). If you're expecting hard evidence to support any of that information then I will have to disappoint you, since I'm writing up the articles mostly from personal memory (which I deem acceptable for a crowd sourced travel guide). Likely there will be errors in it, but on a Wiki it is normal to count on peer review of the community to correct them. Wikivoyage is not Wikipedia though, so I don't consider it a problem that not everything is backed up by evidence. On the contary, the whole point of Wikivoyage is to offer a lively written travel guide enriched with personal experiences from past travellers without burdening it with references, regardless of the fact that a personal experience with a POI can't be found in any bibliography. ArticCynda (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think mostly personal memory is fine, but for more delicate/controversial issues it's better not to mention them at all, if your excuse is accurate. Selfie City (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the amount of your obsession with Jews, maybe there is indeed some source for all those claims besides your vivid imagination? I mean in Frankfurt the whole "The Jews did it" idiocy got notable enough for a dreadful antisemitic play to be produced. If you are basing your antisemitic comments on hearsay or half-remembered anecdotes anyway, it shouldn't be too hard to refrain from them, or is there a compelling reason not to? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you'd think that when it seems Jews destroyed this building, and then another, and another, and another, that there would be some record of it, somewhere. It increasingly seems like the only source (if you can call it a source) that would mention this kind of thing would be Mein Kampf or some other antisemitic work. Selfie City (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of my favorite pieces of antisemitic trivia (and yes it is not really funny, because way too many people actually believe that drivel) is that according to the Okhrana forgery "Dajoos" are "behind" all the subways as some sort of sinister conspiracy. Well in that case, can we please have a bit more? Subways, that is... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, Hobbitschuster, but I don't understand your most recent comment, but I what I did not notice was that you made the first comment on this thread, which said: "I ask you here and I'll take a non-answer within a reasonable time frame (especially if it is accompanied by you editing other articles or even more Jew-baiting) as an admission of your antisemitism." Haven't we reached the end of that time frame by now? ArticCynda has responded but all the responses have really been non-answers or support of the "victim" card, as I believe Gizza but it. Selfie City (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
w:Okhrana was the tsarist secret police who wrote "the protocols of the learned elders of zion" which - to this day - is one of the most widespread pieces of antisemitic BS. It is still a best seller in parts of the Arab world, or so I've heard. In it there is - among other things - a bit about a giant Jewish/Zionist/whatever conspiracy to build subways all around the world (Tsarist Russia never built any subway until the communists took over). And yes, I do think ArticCynda has had more than enough opportunity to substantially respond and hasn't... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If my previous comment is not a substantial response, then it is a mystery to me what you expect of me. ArticCynda (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the clear questions asked of you more than once should give enough of an indication. You have not substantially answered them. So here's yet another recap: How do you know it was Jews, why is it relevant and what is a source where somebody who doesn't believe you could find your opinion confirmed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, and will you agree to not write anything untrue or controversial ever again? If you respond in a way that tries to dodge the real problem here, I don't think you'll have any hope of ever being a contributor here again... Selfie City (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So civilians fleeing for their lives is a "retreat"? But you're not a Jew-hater. Right. Speaking for myself, what I expect of you at this point is to buzz off. We've had more than enough of your bullshit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For the reasons identified above and at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations, you have been blocked from editing for 3 days. Consideration is being given to extending this to an indefinite ban. If you would like to continue editing, I encourage you to join the discussion on that page. Ground Zero (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ground Zero: unfortunately, I am unable to join any discussion since all edit rights have been revoked apparently, except my own talk page.
@SelfieCity: your appreciation for my work on Kraainem has not gone unnoticed, and since it appears I will soon be banned indefinitely, may I entrust you to support its ongoing star nomination in the future? Kraainem is one of the first articles I wrote on WV, and it would be my last wish that it posthumously grows into a Star.
@Hobbitschuster: it appears the predictions were correct after all, and the swiftness with which evidence of the warning box discussion is being covered up caught even you by surprise. Anyhow, although we had differences in opinion, I nonetheless sincerely enjoyed collaborating with you. And yes, as you mentioned yesterday, Frankfurt am Main would have deserved a proper districtification and cleanup as well...
@Xsobev: I can't finish the Brussels article myself anymore, and it would be a shame if it were to remain in a state of incompletion indefinitely. Since you have been an active contributor to the Brussels article and its districts as of recently, I think you are qualified to complete the districtification road map. I would appreciate it if you would take up that responsibility.

Since there is an ongoing proposal to also ban me from my own talk page, it appears these will be my last words. I want to thank all Wikivoyage editors regardless of their side in the recent conflict for the fruitful collaborations in the last years, in particular those involved in the dynamic map and public transport expeditions. It is very unfortunate that so many productive editors have been dragged down into a negative spiral of increasingly aggressive discussions, and in hindsight, I should not have permitted these discussions to escalate as far as they did and consume/waste as much time as they did. I therefore want to apologize to anyone who has felt personally attacked or insulted. ArticCynda (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi... TBH, I don't want to get involved in this, but since this may be permanent... Just wanted to say big thanks for the work on Brussels/Kraainem, I don't consider those vandalism, it was a big amount of work - you made great guides there. Short of the "controversial" stuff... Too bad :-( (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you on about "evidence for the district discussion being removed"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your apology isn't accepted - that's called a "nopology" in the U.S. because it's about what an unidentified mass of people "felt", not what you wrote, and I note that you have never replied to any of my remarks or questions since you realized I'm a Jew. Thanks for the good work you did and no thanks for the bigotry you spewed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After the 3 day ban, allowing for agitation to settle down, I do want to clarify on my previous goodbye message. Ikan Kekek, I did not address an unidentified mass of people but specifically those editors who were unwillingly dragged into the inreasingly aggressive and ultimately pointless discussions, including yourself. I am sorry that some of my contributions were received as controversial, and therefore want to explicitly apologize to those who feel/felt insulted by them. Wikivoyage is indeed not the place for political debates, regardless of their connection to destination articles. And in hindsight, I should have kept some opinions to myself, which is why I think it would be better to not address your remarks and questions publicly — I don't want to hurt more feelings, and Wikivoyage isn't the right forum to have such discussions.
Although I have made mistakes, I do feel insulted by some editors dismissing my contributions to Brussels as vandalism, and although that is an opinion I respect, it does make me wonder how many editors involved in the debate have bothered to look up how the Brussels article looked like before I started work on it. Self praise is inappropriate given the circumstances, but I think my work deserves an objective review away from any controversial statements., I really appreciate your kind words! With numerous POIs added, a new dynamic map being inserted, and districtification implemented based on 5 months of input by the community, Ibamans comparison of Brussels with Lima seems unjustified in my opinion. ArticCynda (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AC, I was mistaken in writing that you could continue to participate in the discussion on the user ban page. However, there are several editors who are watching you talk page, so anything you post here will be read if the ban is extended.
I have been among the editors who have noted your contributions to Wikivoyage, and it is because of those contributions that there has been so much discussion about blocking you. For other editors, an indefinite ban probably would have been implemented without hesitation. However, as you have insulted other editors and made numerous offensive statements in articles and talk pages, it would take a firm commitment from you not to engage in that sort of behaviour before many editors would be willing to consider welcoming you back. Ground Zero (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Edit conflict] To you, bigotry is a political opinion. To anti-bigots, it's not legitimate politics at all, but simply bigotry. You can't insult my murdered relatives by calling their murder a "defeat" and then expect me to give you any latitude. And in addition to that, it seems pretty clear that your bigotry resulted in numerous warped, inaccurate edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Antisemitism does tend to poison everything and everybody it touches... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speaking for myself as my name came up, I recognize you have solid wiki-editing skills, and did add a lot of content of quality. The problem here, as was with the case I mentioned, is unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion and self-centered attitude. Ibaman (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only just chanced upon this but I will say that it's unfortunate that it had to come to a block as you did make some good contributions. However, WV is absolutely no place for bigotry, and after looking at some of those edits you made, even as someone who has spoken out against excessive political correctness, I don't see how you can expect a reasonable person to believe that those edits were not bigoted. And the way you responded when confronted really reminds me of Alt-right apologists like Lauren Southern and Milo Yiannopoulos. It's sad that it had to come to this given your contributions, but in this modern day and age, we have to take a stand against bigotry, and not banning you would be sending out the wrong message. The dog2 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's over now, but let me make clear that AC was not an "alt-right apologist", but rather someone with antisemitic views. Antisemitism, especially calling mass murder a "defeat", which is obviously contradicting reality and attacking the heart of Jewish culture, was not and still isn't tolerated on Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


About a month has passed since the discussion above, which I believe is enough to make some observations and draw conclusions.

Firstly, I'd like to thank everyone who gave their support over the course of the last month. Thumbs up in particular to SelfieCity who spent a lot of time and effort on advancing Kraainems candidacy in Star nomination, and to Ibaman who voiced an unpopular opinion by recognizing my work. Yes, it was not easy or productive withdrawing myself to the background for so long, but I feel it was necessary to allow the situation to calm down.

Unfortunately, looking at Brussels and its district articles after a month quickly reveals that little substantial work has been done, short of SelfieCitys contributions to the Brussels/North-East district article (thanks for those!). Opportunities to contribute are plentiful however, with the Districtification road map clearly outlying what needs to be done, and many Get in/Get around sections of district articles remaining empty. Apparently it is not so easy after all to write/improve an article for a high profile destination such as Brussels, is it now? I have been publicly shamed for factual inaccuracies in my work (which there were), but at least the article grew and improved over time. I can only observe that the editors who enjoyed bashing my contributions the most a month ago, did not contribute anything to any of the articles themselves. It certainly is a lot easier to spew criticism from the sideline rather than engaging in constructive writing efforts, apparently. I'm very open to criticism and always have been, but find it difficult to take it serious from editors who do not contribute themselves. Not writing anything is certainly an effective strategy to avoid inaccuracies in the content, but I don't think that keeping the Brussels article in a half completed state is the way to go, either. I do not want to point fingers at specific editors here, doing so would be unproductive and unnecessary, as the people addressed are aware of it already. Considering these observations, I think an apology would be in place here.

Yes, there were many errors and imperfections in my contributions, but my work also expanded the Brussels article from 148 kB to 361 kB before splitting it up in districts -- more than doubling the content in volume. I should probably have spent more time checking facts rather than writing up listings from own memory, but even then, errors are inevitable (and a handful of mistakes in 200 kB content doesn't seem unreasonable). Not only were the continuous attacks I faced out of proportion, dismissing ones argumentation and elaboration of opinion as "bigotry" is destructive and unwarranted. And no, if someone holds an opinion different from your own, that does not automatically make it "vandalism", even if said opinion is "controversial". The false accusations (that I would have insulted other editors for example, which I never did) also hurt me on a personal level. I wonder if the editors who so fiercely advocated my ban find the current status quo regarding the Brussels articles so much better anyway, since errors have found their way in precisely because of the moratorium on updating/expanding it. For example, one of Brussels' top restaurants closed in August, but remains listed in our article. And then there are the numerous summer festivals whose event dates need to be updated, etc. If I were a tourist visiting Brussels, I'd consider standing in front of the closed doors of a restaurant a far bigger problem than a mistake in the historic background description of one of the attractions, but apparently, opinions vary on that matter.

Regardless, the hypocrisy of some editors doesn't affect the work done on the Brussels articles, and I am delighted to see that its development is evolving into a gold standard for districtification, dynamic maps, as mentioned in this and this thread for example. This appreciation, after long consideration, made me realize that withdrawing from WikiVoyage would be a mistake. What the WikiVoyage project needs most, in my opinion, is dedicated philanthropists who are willing to invest their free time to add missing content and tackle complex technical challenges such as districtification and dynamic map making. To clarify, I believe any contribution is valuable regardless the effort put into it, but adding commas or correcting date formats is simply not enough to move WikiVoyage upwards in the free travel guide ranking — and becoming the best should still be our goal. Yes, I have understood the arguments and concerns put forward during the discussions last month, but as I've pointed out before, a handful of editors (of which half unaware of my contributions) enforcing a ban is hardly a representative consensus among the hundreds or thousands of editors supporting this project.

I'm therefore delighted to announce that I will resume improving and expanding WikiVoyage in the near future. I acknowledge that the Brussels articles are a sensitive topic though, and as a sign of goodwill, I will refrain from touching any Belgian article for the time being. Furthermore, I will also make an effort to avoid politically sensitive topics and discussions. I have recently relocated to Russia for work, and will likely focus on improving articles related to my new host country. Participations in discussions will be ended with my name signature as normal. If you want to engage with me, please feel free to do so on this talk page.

Finally, I'd like to reach out to the WikiVoyage community to suggest articles that are in urgent need of work (districtification, dynamic maps, etc.). If you have any requests or comments, please leave them below. After a week or two, I'll evaluate them and make a priority list. ArticCynda (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AC, I appreciate the fact that you want to continue improving the website, but at the same time you can't just say that you want to come back. For a start, you're still banned. And you were banned indefinitely; we don't create those kinds of bans to remove them a month later. We need to wait on the opinions of some bureaucrats and administrators before just taking you off the ban list. I don't think anyone will mind if you say what you think should be improved as long as you keep it to this talk page, but this is really up to the community to decide if they'll let you back.
Also, the statements you made were personal attacks on the Jewish nationality/religious group. That's more than just an opinion, and the more I reflect on it the clearer it becomes that those statements targeted those people. Saying that a race/religion were defeated is harmful enough to any group, but especially harmful to one whose central belief system and culture is about not being defeated. Being banned for that isn't necessarily unfair. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also aware of the above used terms here, like "thumbs up to SelfieCity" for "support". These terms do more to deceive than they do to help; just because I improved a district article in Brussels recently doesn't mean that I support any of AC's actions. I think AC has long tried to win over people with a kind of "divide-and conquer" objective, but we (as in those who participated in the user ban discussion, with the exception of AC of course) need to stay united on this. We banned for a reason, and that needs to be reconsidered in the same way a slushpiled article nomination that is re-nominated must have its former issues brought to the table once again before we let the nomination go to the main page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not a single word about regretting any statement; still playing the victim of "false accusations". Go make your own online travel guide. Ibaman (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not interested in seeing ArticCynda returning to editing here. When presented a list of offensive efits that s/he made here, his/her response was to defend some of them, ignore the ones related to Jews, and claim persecution. And then to insult other editors here, claiming that:
"Of course, an open minded attitude is a requirement to engage in a discussion, which unfortunately seems no longer present among certain editors."
I no longer have any confidence in ArcticCynda's ability to contribute in a way that is not prejudiced against Jews and Muslims, or in his/her ability to work with other members of the community in a respectful way. His/her return would be disruptive to our work. Ground Zero (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Ibaman. AC did some quite obnoxious things & was rightly banned for them. Yes, he or she also did quite a bit of good work, but that does not excuse gratuitous racism.
Before I'd be willing to discuss lifting the block, I would want to see an unambiguous apology for previous behaviour and a promise not to do it again, plus some indication that he or she understands the policies that led to the ban. Pashley (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That's pretty much what I and others asked for weeks ago. They weren't forthcoming then. Would you still accept an apology and mea culpa: that s/he has refused to provide for so long? I'm not sure if would. Ground Zero (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) So I think we're agreed here. I didn't want to express an opinion in my above comment in case others had changed their mind or felt differently, but I really don't see why, after all the discussion we had to block this user, we should now unblock unless AC states a clear apology with the following type of wording, "I'm sorry for the anti-semitic statements I inserted into articles, and I will never do it again." That would somewhat change the scene, although not completely. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no "hypocrisy by some editors". Buzz off, buster. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think nothing I might say would be said without four letter words, so I won't. Just to be clear, I am still very much in favor of AC staying blocked with cause Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you write another long-winded statement which pretends to be an apology while really just blames others and accuses people of "hypocrisy", I'd be tempted to prevent you from editing this talk page, burying this saga once and for all. As Ibaman alluded to, there are other wikis where inserting far-right or other political content may be acceptable or you could make your own. But this is not the place for you nor will it ever be again. Gizza (roam) 05:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea. Letting this schmuck continue to edit his page is just wasting our time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AC seems to think he/she is in charge of this Wiki and can come back and edit upon their own choice. How can you say that you’ll return to editing here when you’re still blocked? I think we’ll have to block AC from talk page editing so they don’t continue to do this sort of thing and disrupt the actions of the rest of us. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This may or may not have been a stealth announcement to edit under a sockpuppet name. If and when any bigot spreads bigotry here again, I say shoot. Not before and not at ghosts. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point about the sockpuppet thing. Getting a little off topic I don’t want you to take my statements related to cycling in the US personally, just that I can tell you that America is a huge country with low population density, and that is key in relation to the cycling rate. I live in America and I’ve been around America so I know this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not take those arguments personally, but let me just say that sometimes to better observe water, it helps not to be a fish. And so to better observe the insanity of ze Germans, not being a German makes the task easier. Likewise for the US... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a fellow American, I disagree with you about biking, SelfieCity, but this is really not the place to discuss that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cycling is a valid travel topic, and a talk page is the best platform for SelfieCity to discuss it. I asked in my previous post for input from the community, so I'm absolutely okay with suggestions like these. I haven't visited the U.S. long enough to have a good view on cycling in that country, so I don't have an opinion on the topic myself for the time being. I don't mind collaborating on related topics if technical work needs to be done that doesn't require profound knowledge of the situation.
@Ikan Kekek: I have allowed you to spread less than constructive comments on my talk page, because I accept that others have different opinions. But I will not permit you to decide what other editors can or cannot discuss on my talk page. Either participate constructively, or take that attitude to your own talk page where you're allowed to write whatever you want. ArticCynda (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're trying to dictate to me now? Hah! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not "trying to dictate you", I only request that, on my own talk page, you allow other editors to discuss topics they consider important in response to my call for participation, even if you don't feel like collaborating yourself. If you want to, you're still welcome to participate yourself as well and make suggestions for articles/expeditions that need work. ArticCynda (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Request denied. Meditate about "self-criticism", real deeply. Ibaman (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • By the way I’ve gotten tired of the pointless cycling debate and I’m not going to talk about it any more. The reason I brought it up here was to explain to Hobbitschuster that I didn’t want him to take my cycling-related statements personally. But I agree with Ikan Kekek that this is not the place to discuss cycling as a topic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: The ban was upheld in March–May 2021.

Matongé page banner

@Traveler100: thanks for updating the page banner for Brussels/Matonge, and your additions to the article. I deliberately left it blank when I created the page because the only pictures I could find on Commons were examples like these which prominently feature people in them. I thought this might be a privacy concern (i.e. publishing pictures of individuals without their explicit permission). Although some may argue that any banner is better than the default, I still think we should be careful with these regarding privacy. ArticCynda (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not need consent when a person is incidentally shown in a photograph depicting some public location or event. Publishing a photograph focusing on specific individual(s) would need consent. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more thing you can do

Copied from User talk:

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]

Unblock request

In line with the provisions of Standard Offer and Second Chance, I am hereby applying for the remaining restrictions on my account to be lifted immediately. This is because all requirements of both Standard Offer and Second Chance, the procedures here suggested by the Wikivoyage community, are now satisfied:

  1. Did not make any edits to the English Wikivoyage for at least 6 months (countdown timer as kindly provided by has expired 2 weeks ago).
  2. Promised to avoid behaviour that led to a ban — committed to abstain from further edits to the Brussels articles, and already demonstrated applying more rigorous fact checking.
  3. Acquired familiarity with English Wikivoyage's editor guidelines and demonstrated this by improving an article suggested by the community (Murmansk Oblast), these improvements that can be found here.

Pinging some administrators to add this unblock request to the relevant noticeboard, review the improved article, and lift the restrictions: @Inas, EvanProdromou, DenisYurkin, MarkJaroski, Texugo, Seligne, PerryPlanet: — Ar​ticC​ynda 19:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. You were banned here and we do not provide standard offer or second chance. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI admins, I have blocked this IP address for three months and semi-protected this page in order to maintain the user ban. IP addresses shouldn’t be editing this user talk page, but AC does, so it’s time to help the userban take effect accordingly.
As for AC’s request to be unblocked, consensus was established at User ban nominations to uphold a permanent ban. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SelfieCity: I temp editor protected this, because almost everyone who participated in the ban nom is either an admin, and if not we can temporarily give temporary temp editor rights if needed (although this is almost a never going to happen situation). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ArticCynda, you yourself openly admitted to ban evading on a discussion with you on the French Wikivoyage, three months ago, completely against community consensus. The fact is, you're banned. We don't provide a standard offer, and we aren't Wikipedia. You went with your bigoted content in article space, where you inserted anti-Jewry, anti-Muslim, anti-African content in, leading to this ban. And then you went with block evading, twice, and being openly and overly proud of it. The fact that you never even brought up why you got banned really takes the cake here.
What more AC, you never apologised to those who you've caused offense to, and you've been given ample opportunities to do so. Not really our problem AC. That's the bed you've made for yourself. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. His request for an unblock is invalided by consensus, a fact his above comment ignores.
@ArticCynda: further attempts to edit this site will be met with a similar response to what you encountered today. You are permanently banned per consensus, so do not try to edit here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]