User talk:Ibaman

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edits to Ubud[edit]

Hi, my friend. Just a heads-up that with these edit summaries, I consider the latest edits by User:Elvahadi to be good (except for the phone number format) and ones we shouldn't revert.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This is Eroy 1998. Sir, you've deleted 'Chilapata' page that I've recently created.[edit]

Apologies if you felt that the content was promotional. The truth is I wasn't familiar with the guidelines of Wikivoyage. I'm sorry. I didn't know that a link to a single page is not allowed multiple times. I'm not a business owner, but a traveller, with a slight inclination towards a particular resort that I've stayed at, in Chilapata. Chilapata wildlife sanctuary is an important travel destination, but hasn't got much awareness like its nearby destinations (example, Jaldapara National Park). You can google it if you want to check. It really needs a page of its own, and the sad part is nobody has taken the initiative to do so. If I keep my tone neutral and unbiased, am I allowed to re-create 'Chilapata' page? —The preceding comment was added by Eroy1998 (talkcontribs)

Hi Ibaham. Please note a similar conversation at w:user talk:billinghurst. Billinghurst (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Retired" IP account?[edit]

Hi, Ibaman. What's the story on this and this? SelfieCity, please feel free to comment too/instead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The story AFAIK is: anonymous user, most probably an employee of the Cinnamon hotel chain of India, trying to use Wikivoyage to advertise a business, but without any success. Ibaman (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I mistakenly believed this was the user who you contacted, due to the timing of the IP user’s edits. I wasn’t totally sure, but I probably shouldn’t have intervened, since it’s not my area of expertise. All these touts seem the same to me! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Dunno, guys. These are regular listings, albeit with no descriptions, and 2 of the 4 are Cinnamon hotels. I'm not seeing anything obviously revertable here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • if it had been on one page only, I'd agree and take no action . However, this user spammed on several pages, therefore it could not stand. Ibaman (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh sure. I didn't realize that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Border[edit]

Hello, Re this; from the times of the Grand Duchy to the WWII, the Russian-Finnish border actually wasn't too far outside St. Petersburg, along Sestra. Nowadays the river is the border of Leningrad Oblast and the City of St. Petersburg. Not sure if it's important to mention in the article, though. Ypsilon (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi. That bit's choice of words was bothering me as geohistorically innacurate, per Vyborg's history (which itself is waaay more complicated than we can describe on a travel guide), and the fact that the Grand Duchy was part of the empire from 1811 on. It's hard not to oversimplificate things in our context. I aim for brevity and accuracy. Let's keep tweaking. Ibaman (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Vyborg has "changed countries" several times. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire[edit]

I started up articles for the two historical European empires that we still didn't have articles for, and thought about asking you if you'd "possibly" would have time and interest to contribute "something little" to the Portuguese Empire article. Looks like I don't need to ask, at this speed the article will be at guide status before the weekend is over. :) --Ypsilon (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I can kinda boast of having a considerable knowledge about this subject :D Ibaman (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about a revert[edit]

Hi Ibaman. What was wrong with this edit? It looks fine to me, but maybe I'm missing something. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  • ...maybe it's overzealousness from my part? I kinda get into "autopilot" when I see a new "taxi airport services" listing. As I said, every day I get to revert about 30 or 40 of them, mostly from Mumbai and Chandigarh and Goa and Rishikesh and Varanasi and so forth. I reckon it'd be un-isonomic and unjust to treat Portuguese similar advertisers differently. Ibaman (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Then maybe you shouldn't revert any of them? Or if you think airport pickup services shouldn't be allowed, let's start a discussion in the pub to figure out what our policy should be. Either way, I think it is extreme to block a well-intentioned user without saying what the problem was. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
In other words, if the problem is that airport pickup services can't be listed, then I think you should say that to the user instead of just vaguely linking to Don't tout (which says nothing about whether or not airport pickup services are allowed). —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully, did you open the link? It opens a page that says in Portuguese "service is terminated as of 16 March. We'll be coming back soon". In its present state, it's a textbook case of External links#What not to link to, IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like it could be a temporary service suspension due to COVID-19, in which case the listing should be fine to include. But the broader point remains: on the user's talk page, you didn't say anything about the link being dead. The user had no way to know that the link was the problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You have a point. It's not the first complaint I hear about not using the user's talk pages more often. I'll make this up. Ibaman (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus routes in "Get around"[edit]

Hi Ibaman, I'm just wondering if I could get your advice on something? I recently added some information on bus routes to a number of towns in Ireland, and I noticed that on a few of these you moved my info from the "Get around" to the "Get in" sections. The bus routes I added were intended to be a list of useful bus routes which somebody staying in the town might use for 'getting around' (not only within the limits of the town, but also to the surrounding vicinity).

I didn't put this list in the "Get in" section, because they are not all routes which would be particularly useful for 'getting in'. For example, in the case of Balbriggan, the 192 and 195 routes go to nearby rural villages, so it is unlikely that any traveller visiting Balbriggan would be arriving via these routes. However, someone staying in Balbriggan might find these routes useful for 'getting around' to explore nearby villages.

My plan was to go through all of the towns in Ireland and add any useful bus routes into the "Get around" sections, and then go back through them at a later stage and put more focused information for 'getting in' into the "Get in" sections, such as routes from the main cities and airports. But I'm a little unsure now how I should proceed with this.

As a general rule, should bus routes in or out of a location always be in the "Get in" section, regardless of whether they would actually be used for 'getting in'? Or is it ok to list these routes in the "Get around" section, and maybe just make the text clearer, to explain that this is a list of useful routes, which someone who is already here could use for 'getting around'?

Thanks for your help, Regards, Royboymaps (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your concern. Per wycsi, "town-to-town" bus services go in Get In#By bus, and "intra-town" services in Get Around#By bus. This was the logic behind my corrections. Your edits prove you have a considerable knowledge about your area, which is very valuable in Wikivoyage. Thank you for them, keep them coming in. Ibaman (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I think Royboymaps's logic is better than strictly going by the advice in wycsi. These lines should be find in the Get in of those villages, if they get articles, but I think there is little use listing them in the Get in of the main town. Perhaps there have been discussion on this that I am nor aware of? --LPfi (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If there was, I'm also unaware. I acted on autopilot here, tweaking things to what I sense to be WV default. If the older version better serves the traveller, let's revert. Ibaman (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes. I think it is a sensible default, but somebody with local knowledge should do as best serves the traveller. --LPfi (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I rolled my edits back. Ibaman (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi Ibaman and LPfi, thanks for your advice and comments. I can understand the reasoning behind the default guidelines, but also the need to do whats best for the traveller. I think I'll keep going with this approach then, but I'll be clearer and say that these routes provide service beyond the town, and may be useful to those who wish to explore the surronding vicinity. Most of these routes have multiple stops within the towns and so can also be used for intra-town journeys, so I'll mention this point too. Regards, Royboymaps (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

O Rio de Janeiro[edit]

Good evening! As you've added the factoids that Recife and Porto are often referred to with an article, in Brazilian_Portuguese_phrasebook#Gender,_plurals,_and_adjectives it's mentioned that Brazil's, if not South America's most famous city, Rio de Janeiro, is also referred to with an article. It might be worth mentioning it in the city's article too. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Good idea. I'm operational. Let me see if I can remember more. Ibaman (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite block?[edit]

Hi Ibaman, why did you just indefinitely block User:Saurabhgurgaon with talk page access and email disabled? That is an extreme measure only for severe vandals. Based on Special:Contributions/Saurabhgurgaon, it appears that this user is making an earnest effort to contribute to the travel guide. Can you please explain what justified this extremely harsh block? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I just checked out his global contributions. He happened to be indefblocked today, on Wikipedia, per the same reason, insistent PCV, creating articles for bus stands and such. There have been lots of edit wars in Wikipedia on the last years, coming from India, that sparked really lamentable incidents full of profanities and such. I'm thinking of preventing this ending up spilling here. Ibaman (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to block a user here simply on the basis that they were blocked on Wikipedia, or based on their nationality. I especially don't think it's appropriate to deny talk page and email access (making it impossible for the user to appeal the block) on that basis. Are you willing to reverse the block, or should we take this issue to the pub to seek the community's input on whether this type of block is appropriate? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I based myself on this. Please tell me if it's overreaction from my part. Ibaman (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. To be frank, I think it's a strong overreaction on your part. I don't think it's appropriate to block a user here on the basis that they violated Wikipedia policy by using sockpuppets on that wiki. And even on Wikipedia, the blocking admin didn't remove talk page access, which you did here—that is really an extreme step that should only be done if necessary, because it leaves the user with no recourse. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
do you remember Lima's Turbo8000, or Arctic Cynda? It's identical. I'd better be safe than sorry, eh. Ibaman (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Ibaman, those are not reasonable comparisons at all. Those users were first given clear warnings, then short blocks; they were only blocked indefinitely when other steps proved ineffective. Please read over Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks for how user blocks are supposed to be used.
You say "better be safe than sorry", and I agree with that sentence—but you seem to interpret it differently than I do. I think we should be cautious about blocks, because an unnecessary block of a well-intentioned new user can easily deprive Wikivoyage of a new contributor. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree this comparison was unhappy. This guy here never once answered to no one on his talk page. I'd be more lenient if this was not the case. His behavior on Wikipedia tilted the scales of my judgement. Ibaman (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
On the basis that the user wasn't responding on the user talk page, you blocked his/her ability to respond on the user talk page? That doesn't make sense. And an indefinite block the first time? Again, I urge you to read Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
His talk page is unblocked, Max, per this conversation. Ibaman (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and while I still don't understand why you removed talk page access in the first place, I'm glad that you restored it. But the user remains indefinitely blocked, which I do not think is justified. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Let me change it to two weeks then. I'd be happy to read in his talk page that he's not a vandal, and will read and abide our policies, and make bona fide contribs. But I doubt he'll change his Wiki ways. Let's be vigilant. Ibaman (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I hope so too. Hopefully we'll see more good contributions like this one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
By the way, it's off-topic but I meant to thank you for all the improvements you made to the Brazilian Portuguese phrasebook earlier this month. It looks like it's been improved a lot! Kudos. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The first block is normally 3 days. If this is the user's first block, I'd encourage you to shorten the time. At the first sign of ignoring any talk page message, the user can be blocked for 2 weeks with another message, then 3 months the 3rd time and indefinitely after that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
This user is on ignoring mode from the start. Today he went into edit war mode, and then after a mild block I made my searches, and turns out that this user today, not much before, got indefbanned in Wikipedia for insistent PCV. I said to myself, "maybe he'll vent frustration on Wikivoyage? No way" and escalated the block. Sorry if I sound racist, but I've been recently following some edit wars by Hindu and Pridnestrovian/Moldovan nationalists in Wikipedia, and this might have affected my vigilance habits. Granger pointed out some good edits from him, but his overall m.o. sounds "total vandal" to me. Let's see whether any complaint is made. I'm vigilant. Ibaman (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any edit warring, nor do I see questions on their talk page. Are those edits deleted? --LPfi (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Which edit or edits on Wikivoyage justify the first block? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, there is some edit warring. If you look at the history of Sarsai Nawar, I've twice reverted a pagebanner that was too big, and also left a message on his talk page the first time. Now, there's a third oversized pagebanner in place. If there's other stuff like that, a three-day block is justified.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
At most a very low-intensity edit war: inserting of different banners three times, the first time a week after being reverted. On sv-wp three revertions in one day is counted as edit war warranting a block. And one unanswered message, which was not a question. No warning. I think the block was an extreme decision, with the en-wp behaviour the only thing remotely warranting a block. Not following guidelines and advice is no reason for a block unless they are clearly in bad faith, touting or big scale ignoring warnings. --LPfi (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I can resolve the problem with the pagebanner. I can understand a block and can somewhat see both sides here, but I think an indefinite block ‘’including talk page and email’’ was an unnecessary step too far. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with LPfi, and I'll add that I don't think users should be blocked here for using sockpuppets on en.wikipedia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Good morning, y'all. I see our guy didn't come back, and didn't complain about his 2-week block. If he does, I won't object to his unblocking. Ibaman (talk)
Good morning. You haven't provided any justification for a two-week block, and nobody else thinks that block length was justified or grounded in policy, so I've reduced it to three days, as is the norm for a first block. I'm open to arguments for the block to be lifted altogether, but am not prepared to take that step unilaterally.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
no objection. I'm vigilant. Ibaman (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I would say lift the block altogether. With respect to the pagebanner, I think it's clear the user was making an effort to respond to the feedback, even if they didn't do so correctly. The block on Wikipedia shouldn't justify a block here when the user's edits on Wikivoyage have been good-faith contributions, and a user's nationality should never be a consideration in whether to block. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
agreed fully but for the point of "the user was making an effort to respond to the feedback". He never once wrote on his talk page. This is malicious m.o. to me, as such user is obviously familiar with editing techniques and syntax. IF he ever used it (or if there was any sign of complaint by now), I'd get less suspicious. Ibaman (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to agree there's no evidence that feedback was even read, much less taken on board. I can't go as far to say that there was any malicious intent, because the lack of engagement leaves a big black hole of uncertainty. I still think we should enforce policy by the book, but I would not be surprised if a similar editing pattern resumes after the block expires / is lifted. To try to avoid this while continuing to assume good faith, perhaps another message on the guy's talk page would be in order, briefly going over the problems, explaining that we're here to help and want to, but we need some engagement back in return in order to work together.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
yeah, I kinda expect a similar editing pattern to resume after the block expires / is lifted. I hope this timeout can serve a good purpose. We're a team and have achieved a good level of organization and swift action agains touts, vandals and spammers, which I trust. Ibaman (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
FWIW the user did also remove the vfd tag from that (now deleted) bus station article. Given their track record on WP this user should definitely be watched. On WP they haven't been interested in discussing their edits but have just complained about being blocked and their edits and articles being deleted and reverted. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the user substituted a different banner (though still not with the right dimensions) seems to me to be a sign that they were trying to take the feedback into account, but perhaps I'm being too generous. I have to admit the revision SelfieCity links is not encouraging. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Everything on that userpage is copied from other users' pages. The line about our coverage being uneven is from another Wikivoyager (DaGizza), the bouncing Wikipedia balls I've seen elsewhere, the Babel box is obviously inaccurate etc. But they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and currently we're allowed to put whatever we like on our user pages.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

London vandalism and cross-wiki abuse[edit]

Hi Ibaman, thanks for taking care of the vandalism at London. That vandal's been causing problems at enwikipedia for a few weeks, and I posted at Wikidata's Admins' noticeboard about the steps we've been taking. I'm not sure what the revisions you deleted contained, but you may find our abuse filter useful for stopping the vandalism, and we've been trying to figure out a more robust solution at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Bot_for_the_current_main-page-related_vandalism. Wikidata chose not to use the edit filter, and it may not be a big enough problem for Wikivoyage to bother with yet, but let me know if you or other WikiVoyagers need help handling the cross-wiki abuse. Best, Wugapodes (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

FYI the protected version of your user page still has the attack --DannyS712 (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Ibaman (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Maybe hide the revision of the protection as well? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Colombia / Panama boats[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Look at recent edits to the "get in # by boat" section. I think User:Ibaman somewhat jumped the gun by being too harsh on that newbie. Or am I missing something there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that we should do more to encourage new users to edit here rather than reverting their edits, I think would be better to move this discussion to User talk:Ibaman. Several Wikivoyagers have made edits to that page recently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • For the record, his first edits were of the "sneaky link on main text" kind, and substituting his own link for another service's. I wrote the tout template on his talk page. The user didn't answer and reverted my corrections. At this point, I gave him the standard "persistent tout, 1st warning block" as I do every time on every user that behaves this way. That's when dialog started. I pointed him to appropriate policy, unblocked him and went to sleep. I woke up not long ago. Let me check what happened. Ibaman (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Ibaman has been trying to resolve this on the user's talk page, which is the appropriate first step for dealing with a disagreement in Wikivoyage. Bringing a disagreement with a long-established user to the pub without first discussing it with them on their talk page is the wrong way to go about things. Ground Zero (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The replaced link was of a linksquatter so it was de facto dead but not recognized by our deadlink bot. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
And I thanked him for pointing this out, and removed said link. The dialog was funny, I'm not sure if the person is unfamiliar with computers and Wiki syntax, or went cynical with my face, but am assuming good faith so far. Ibaman (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: I'm not fully following how "multiple editors having edited the page recently" is a reason against raising this in the pub... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My concern isn't specifically about starting the discussion in the pub, it's about keeping it here. This discussion is about the individual actions of an administrator and it ought to be discussed at the relevant talk page, where many important editors have commented recently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • For the record again, the first edits mentioned were of a purely touty nature, my actions were textbook procedure, and I stand by them, unlike some former harsh actions of mine on other articles and with other new users. Ibaman (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It is correct that the edits seem touty on the face of them, but I think you could've checked whether the replaced link was actually pointing to something existing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm looking at the edit history of Colombia—I think the first revert is debatable (it would have been better to check whether the existing link was dead before reverting), but the second revert is definitely too harsh—the user clearly explained in the edit summary that the ferry service no longer exists. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You're right Max. But persistent touts have a method, this guy was consistent with it, and left a flea behind my ear. The moment he explained himself on his talk page, I unblocked him gladly. @Hobbitschuster: Your opinion is totally correct and I abide. However, if you, my dear halfling fellow, took this step of carefulness before me or as the same time, this whole topic of discussion could have been avoided altogether. Let's share the blame here, and go back to our games of historical ball, shall we. Ibaman (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
No harm intended. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't realize you had blocked them. I think that's too extreme. In the future, I suggest reading the edit summary and seeing if it is reasonable before reverting or blocking. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I do think discussing the issue on the user's talk page is a good step, so thumbs-up on that. And thank you for unblocking after the explanation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
About careful checking of link content (both substitute and substituted, if it's the case), it's really necessary and primary, I can assure the community that I'll never go into "harsh admin mode" before this step from now on. Ibaman (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Europe semi-protection[edit]

Hi matey. I'm a bit unsure as to your rationale for protecting Europe from IP and newbie edits for a whole week. There were only two edits by the same IP which, while not the best quality in the world, weren't really vandalistic in their content. I know we're all getting jaded by the amount of shitty edits to revert at the moment, since there's millions of people with nothing better to do right now than vandalise websites or try to recoup some lost customers by touting, but I don't think we should lock down Europe, so to speak, just for two edits.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Don't you think it a good idea? I'm always high-strung about anonymous IPs able to graffiti at will our central high-hierarchy pages to include personal preferences and tweedle, Pridnestrovie or Transnistria, Romania is Balkanic or Latin, where does Malta fit, blah blah blah. A step up of protection would not be bad, IMHO. Maybe this should be debated by the whole community. Ibaman (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I came here to ask about the Africa semi-protection, which I don't really understand since there hasn't been a pattern of disruption (only one IP edit, which I disagreed with and evidently you did too, but not vandalism). I can understand being high-strung at the moment—I think many of us are, which means we have to work harder than ever to make sure this is a welcoming community. I'm trying to see contributions from IPs and new users as opportunities to guide a new editor and welcome them into the fold. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I must also say the edits (particularly the ones to the Europe article) were more along the lines of a newbie trying their best rather than vandalistic, touty or offensive. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
a prevention measure gave birth to an afterthought and the draft for a proposal for comment, or so we may say. Actually, I think this should be moved to the Pub for more comment. IMHO indefinite protection of continents and countries and articles prone to polemic (Middle East comes to mind first) should be default in Wikivoyage, as prevention against spammers, touts, vandals and mistakes by unexperienced users. Ibaman (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
It depends on our resources. If defending those articles take too much energy, we have to protect them, if they don't, those edits could be used to introduce new users to our site. Perhaps articles where people come to further theirs agenda are not the best recruitment ground, but people who notice they cannot edit the travel guide anyone can edit are probably not that inclined to become wikivoyagers. Those adding their favorite destination or restaurant too high in the hierarchy may be educable. --LPfi (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This discussion was taken to the pub. It was actually overreaction by me, on a busy day, and we achieved consensus about removing their protection. I still think it not a bad idea, though; if the problem arises again, I plan to reopen the discussion. Ibaman (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I don't know how I got the impression this thread was more recent. --LPfi (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)