User talk:Tony1

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Link to my English Wikipedia talk page

Hello, Tony1! 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. jan (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good editing job on Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My welcome too. Thanks for getting right into it. --Inas (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens in dates[edit]

While it may be more typographically elegant, isn't it easier to use a hyphen rather than an N-dash or whatever in dates? Aren't we making a rod for our own backs going down this route, Tony? -- Alice 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Block revert and abbreviations[edit]

Hi Tony and welcome to the WikiVoyage project. I note you have recently been quite active on the project and have been discussing some issues at User_talk:Globe-trotter#U_dot_S_dot, I have left some comments there. I hope you will understand they are made with only good intent and concern. Hope to see some more of you here on WV. cheers -- Felix (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy[edit]

Regarding this: You'll note I only reverted one instance of United States back to United States of America. That one instance was carefully chosen: it occurred within a representation of our breadcrumb trail, which currently will display United States of America for any U.S. destination. If you want to propose renaming the article, that would be one thing, but the sample breadcrumb trail should reflect current reality. LtPowers (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind if we change United Kingdom to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And Australia to Commonwealth of Australia. It's really important for backpackers to have the formal, legal names every time they occur. Tony (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed the point. The breadcrumb IS United States of America. If you want to change the breadcrumb, then discuss that, but you can't have the documentation saying the breadcrumb is what the breadcrumb isn't. See Wikivoyage:Breadcrumb navigation for more. --Inas (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I explicitly said I intentionally left almost all of your changes (of "United States of America" to "United States") in place, and I gave a very very specific reason for reverting the one, single instance I did. You proceeded to completely ignore what I wrote and instead responded as if I'd reverted every one of your shortenings. That is not very productive. LtPowers (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Times and dates[edit]

I understand you don't like Wikivoyage's current time and date format policy, but ignoring it blithely and revising eg. Melbourne's times and dates into precisely the wrong format is not acceptable. Please gain consensus for changes first. Jpatokal (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Times is a sitewide policy, and you've been on Wikipedia long enough to understand that these things matter. Think of it as a client brief: you may not like their house style, but if you're going to edit here, you either have to accept the brief or change it.
And for what it's worth, I have no particular attachment to large-cap AM/PM and would happily support a sitewide switch over -- but we need to get a few more people than just us two to agree on that. Jpatokal (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up![edit]

Some people seem to think I'm really you! -- 11:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the font and colour of examples in our MoS[edit]

Since you're interest in this topic goes back to at least December 2008, you might like to comment at Template_talk:Xt#Why_is_this_needed.3F, Tony? --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Tony - insofar as you have suggestions for improving Wikivoyage your comments are welcome, but this isn't really the proper forum to state that you think WV was a waste of WMF funds and is doomed to fail [1]. While your opinion is of course valid, surely you recognize that repeatedly demeaning the hard work people have put into this project is bound to elicit strong reactions? I'd ask that you please remember that the primary goal of people here is to create the best possible travel guide, and ask that you try to refrain from comments that are counter-productive to achieving that goal. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The travellers' pub seems to be the ideal place to engage more editors. Part of the reason this site has become dysfunctional is because most regular editors don't participate in discussions. I'm sorry if people find it threatening to be challenged, but that is necessary when faced with entrenched stasis. It's far from being "the best possible travel guide", and these entrenched objections to change, and a dysfunctional approach to consensus gathering, ensure that that goal will never be achieved. Far from it. Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's very frustrating that you seem unable to understand the difference between making suggestions for changes and saying "since you won't do what I want, you're gonna die." We all need to be a little less attached to our egos and a little more focused on trying harder to persuade people of things we consider important. Is it really impossible for you to understand this, or will you insist on reacting hostilely or defensively every time someone tries to reason with you on this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see: you're the one "reasoning" with me. I'm the one who doesn't "understand". How more skewed and ego-centric could you get? More entrenchment. More "shut up and accept the way we do it". I don't. Tony (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the answer to my question, of course, is "Yes." Good day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've exhausted my weekly WV time budget confronting entrenched resistance here. It augurs very badly for my assessment of the prospects of this site. Tony (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understand that in no way do I feel that it is "threatening to be challenged", but if your goal is truly to engage other editors be aware that on a site that is driven by a need to find common ground, most editors here are likely to ignore someone who is combative. I've read many of the comments you've added in the past here, but given your tone and obvious disdain for this site didn't feel that it would be a productive use of time to try and engage you and have instead participated in more civil discussions; perhaps the reason why you feel that your comments aren't being addressed is that others have done the same. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Understand that ...". Hmmm, we're down to ordering me about, are we? I don't like your tone. And constructing proposals for change as "combative" is part of the strategy to resist all change. I'm done talking in circles for the moment. The more I'm here, the more I think this site and its long-time community are terminal. Convince me otherwise. Tony (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony. What specific proposal did you make that was not supported? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been around here much lately, but as far as I can tell, it has to do with making American English the default language for articles. Which Tony, being Ozian, is naturally not going to favor. He has already been central in getting more unbiased and internationally-oriented EngVar standards adopted at en.WP, so there's no reason not to expect him to work the issue on other wikis as well. —Neotarf (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he has to do so civilly and with a respect for our established editors, conventions, and processes. He failed on all three counts; this had nothing to do with the substance of his proposals and everything to do with the ridiculously combative way he presented them. LtPowers (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is stupid. I don't know why anyone has wasted any time on it. — 02:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User ban nomination[edit]

Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#User:Tony1

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I've applied a three-day block to your account to allow everyone involved to take a time-out. Since you are not a frequent contributor here hopefully this will not inconvenience you, and that should also give everyone involved time to step back and hopefully gain some distance from what have become emotionally-charged discussions. As I mentioned earlier, while suggestions for improving the site are very welcome, your comment style has been almost universally perceived as combative and is creating a distraction for everyone involved - based on your earlier comments I suspect you would disagree with that assessment, but the fact that discussions have strayed from matters pertaining to the site and into unproductive areas is a testimony to the strong reactions your words have elicited. Regarding your earlier comment that "constructing proposals for change as "combative" is part of the strategy to resist all change", I would propose that we can easily put that theory to the test in three days if you would like: if you have any specific proposals for change, let's discuss them without any blanket statements that this site was a waste of money from the WMF, without accusations that the editors here are unable to change, without repeated statements about the inevitable demise of WV, and without threats to "spend considerable effort in broadcasting to people in the WMF movement just what kind of closed, retrogressive, bullying mentality dominates here", and I would suggest that those change proposals will not be "resisted" and will instead be addressed productively. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you'll never see me again. (Oh, you'll see me, but it won't be on this site.) It is morally reprehensible, and demonstrates a clear strategy to get rid of critical voices—anyone who dares to stand up to the boys' club here.

From now on, I'll be deeply committed to letting Wikimedians know what a corrupt and bullying power structure has developed here. This is so dysfunctional it is laughable. Tony (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the statement that you will be "deeply committed to letting Wikimedians know what a corrupt and bullying power structure has developed here" is a reference to using your position with the Signpost, but if so I'd like to request that you have a neutral third-party review this incident before anything is published. In my (and others) attempt to resolve this incident objectively, it looks like your comments of the past few days were meant not to engage in improvement of the site, but instead to provoke the community of editors here by making inflammatory statements and then repeatedly accusing the "bullying power structure" of being xenophobic and attempting to "get rid of critical voices" when anyone requested that you try to be more civil, and under those circumstances I think the reaction was similar to what would have been encountered in most other WMF projects. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions here have been aggressive, unjust, and ultimately self-destructive. They are symptomatic of a pattern seen in quite a few small wikis that are taken over by a clique of editors whose leadership focuses not on optimising content and presentation, and encouraging new ideas and adaptation to remain competitive, but in maintaining a closed and relatively static community that supports their own power. The English Wikinews is a prime example of this—somewhat worse than en.WV, but let's not compare with quite such a low base.

Now that the full extent of bovver-boy group bullying has been exposed in Wikivoyage, I regret having worked hard last year to provide favourable coverage of the Internet Brands bullying—behaviour that I see you and others now replicating. And I'm not the only one: I was rung yesterday by another editor who has clearly been the victim of lazy, untested presumptions and is similarly distressed. Yet another WV person emailed me a message that confirms my suspicions about very unhealthy developments in the culture, but as apologist claimed that it's just "going through a bad patch".

The names of perpetrators roll out, such as LtPowers, this chief-sheriff gun-them-down Andre person, PeterFitzgerald (apparently still around), and yourself. I'm sure these individuals have done good work, but it unravels before our eyes in this violent context. Just remember when you participate in this walled fiefdom behaviour that had it not been for the WMF you may well have been bankrupted personally and lost your IT business. We all felt sorry for you at the time, but the current scenario has painted you in a very different light. Why any WMF site would be quick to foment enemies by blocking people for trumped-up reasons is a wonder just in terms of its self-interest, let alone issues of fairness to individuals. You may censor me on this site, but you can't censor me on other sites. Indeff me, please, because it would make utterly no difference: I'm not coming back to this disgusting environment. This is a good start to the undoing of the site. Incidentally, the Signpost publishes only balanced material in its "News and notes" and is keenly aware of COI issues (although this is not necessarily the case in its occasional opinion pages). Tony (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


It may interest you to know that

1) your (second) proposed user ban has now been withdrawn and archived by AndreCarrotflower

2) I have now made the changes you proposed at Wikivoyage:Time and date formats nearly 5mo ago since I did not read any opposes there whatever.

If you have the time to make any more constructive proposals I would personally welcome that as a clear sign that a bullying, ignorant, pack mentality here has not prevailed and that we are on course to return to the more welcoming and collegiate attitude that prevailed before the IB takeover. --118.93nzp (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swept in from the pub

I've received a long email of the blocked user in the subject with a request of unblock. Since I have no idea of who is the user and why he was blocked (I have no time to look for the history), I was wondering if any or maybe all the en:voy admin have received such email. However, I suggest to anyone that can be interested on this case, to discuss here before taking any autonomous action.

(out of chrono) Please Tony1 stop sending me emails. I've started this topic because from one side it's fair and I'm fine with the fact that you want to rediscuss your block in one single wiki (not a global block) after several years, but from the other side I would avoid that an admin would remove a block without a public discussion. My personal suggestion to you is to wait the en:voy community will discuss about it and, after a reasonable time, if you want to add something, feel free to write it on your talk page of your main wiki (i.e. en:w) pinging anyone involved on this discussion and anyone you think may be interested (pings works from/to any wiki). Thanks for your understanding. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyrom75: It seems @Andre Carrotflower: blocked them per NOTHERE, but personally, I would Oppose an unblock. They're also blocked on frwiki as well for being disruptive as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This guy sent me an email too. I'm not going to fully out the email, but one of the reasons in his appeal was "The block prevented me from voting in the recent election of WMF board members.". Uhm, nope. I still would not trust someone who broke community trust, which gave him consequences globally. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user did ask me to paste their reasons here, so here it is:
  • The block prevents me from accessing the Wikipedia Library of non-free academic journals to provide sources for articles at en.WP I edit.
  • The block prevented me from voting in the recent election of WMF board members.
  • Crucially, I do not expect to edit Wikivoyage again.
Still no for me. And I'm confused on the first reason. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I’m confused on the third reason. If he does not want to edit Wikivoyage, why ask us for an unlock request? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it's because of reason 2: "The block prevented me from voting in the recent election of WMF board members." Personally, if he abused the trust of the community, that's too bad he can't vote in the WMF board members election. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion he should be unblocked. It was not a community ban. The 2019 ban did not go through Wikivoyage:User ban nominations. The only ban nom was one from 8 years ago that resulted in a 3 day block. In 2019 Andre accidently pinged Tony (which he regretted), got into a brief argument with him, then unilaterally banned him. He should be unblocked and in the unlikely event that he starts problematic editing it can go through User ban nominations. Nurg (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be an ideal solution, but I'm also concerned about his behaviour on frwiki. This person seems to have cross wiki issues as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at discussions I found on his contribution page and I certainly got the impression he was a problem user. I did not look carefully enough to see whether this was his fault or whether he had been badly treated, and I did not look through his contributions. Anyway, on one hand problem users are not given the privilege of being able to vote on the WMF board or of having literature access financed through the WMF, and being banned (on several projects?) is seen as a measure on being a problem user. Having seen those discussions I am not too eager to give him these privileges.
On the other hand, if he was banned against our policy, I don't see how we can keep him banned, and I don't see it worthwhile to now have several users evaluate his edits, which might still not be a reason to ban him, as none of them is recent. If denying him privileges depend on us, then the system is broken, and fixing it is not our responsibility.
LPfi (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000 - If by pinging me you're soliciting my opinion, I'd echo other commenters in saying that voting for WMF board members is a privilege, not a right, and it's a privilege that is rightly denied to those who edit disruptively on any wiki. It is also correct to say that the problems with Tony1 aren't confined to his behavior at Wikivoyage; I don't have time to link diffs right now as I'm away from my office and editing on mobile, but a search through pages that link to his English Wikipedia userpage ought to be enlightening for anyone who's curious. And I'll also add with respect to Nurg's remarks that it's especially disappointing and shameful to see my actions as an admin, which were not against Wikivoyage policy and which had the broad support of the community at the time, being impugned and dismissed years after the fact by a user who was only marginally active in Wikivoyage affairs at the time the drama went down. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise to Andre – I didn't word my comments as carefully as I would have liked. Andre banned Tony1 with this comment, "Per exceptions list at Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban; user obviously is not here to help build a travel guide". Neither I nor anyone else (AFAIK) who was aware of the ban commented on it. In that sense, there was silent consensus. Accordingly one could say it was a community ban by silent consensus. No-one who was aware of the action said that explicit consensus needed to be gained through Wikivoyage:User ban nominations. I have not said, then or now, that Andre did anything wrong. And, until this present request from Tony, I had not said that the ban should be lifted. I apologise to Andre for any implication that his actions were wrong, as I had not intended that. Nurg (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact that, if I'm reading this correctly, being blocked on any wiki is grounds for being denied the opportunity to vote for WMF board members? If that's the case, then unblocking him here wouldn't make a difference anyway; fr.wp would have to unblock him as well, and we have no control over that. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there was consensus at the time, or him not contributing positively was evident, then I don't think he needs to be unblocked (above I was too rule fixated, which is not the wiki way). The policy on not banning users is for contributors who might have a bad temper and get in conflict with individual admins; we do not need to protect users who don't intend to contribute. –LPfi (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andre Carrotflower: Yeah just wanted to get your opinion as you were the one who blocked this user. But regardless, even if all this didn't happen, I would still oppose an unblock for spamming my email (+Andyrom's as well).
But as both of you said, if he doesn't want to contribute, then we don't need to defend him into having the privilege of voting at the WMF board elections. OTOH, if we wasn't banned on frwiki for his behaviour, it's a different case, but I'm still not convinced that unblocking him is a good idea here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say unblock, for approximately the reasons Nurg gives above. Pashley (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support unblocking this user. Tony was nominated by Andre for a user ban back in 2013, and the latter commented at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive#User:Tony1, "This user has been a thorn in our side almost from Day 1. His interactions with the community have been almost uniformly combative, unconstructive, and insulting. He has no evident interest in advancing our project; on the contrary, he seems to openly resent the existence of Wikivoyage as a WMF project, and has even gone so far as to gleefully predict this site's demise on a frequent basis." After discussion, a three-day block was applied, but Tony was again nominated for a ban only a month later, which was met with a mixed response but ultimately, failed to gain consensus to block.
Since this incident WV's admins have tried to be patient with some new users, and found that despite apologies and requests for a clean start following troubled editing patterns, the same M.O. of each problem user has re-appeared and resulted in another block. WP has experienced this as well, but as a smaller site, we don't have Wikipedia's resources to support the rehabilitation and unblocking of banned users only to re-block them. WP's administrative body is dedicated to this, and I'd guess some of their administrators enjoy the administrative side of their project, but I think most of our administrators are more interested in writing travel content than administering bans or fighting vandalism, and do these activities only out of duty to the project.
In the last couple years since we took a stricter stance on contributor's M.O.'s, WV has become a more peaceful and enjoyable place to contribute, but re-instating this user wouldn't help us achieve this. It's clear that Tony was opposed to our goals when he contributed, and I don't see why unblocking him would benefit this wiki, even if he doesn't intend to edit here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This issue is new to me — 2013 is before my time here. I've read through the various discussions, and I have no concern about continuing this block. He was disruptive, combative, and generally a problem for those who were trying to build a travel guide. If there wasn't consensus then, I think there would be now because of our less patient mood, as noted by SelfieCity. This change in mood has resulted from spending too much time giving the kid-glove treatment to people like Tony1 who are not here to build a travel guide, as Andre Carrotflower pointed out. Someone as angry and disruptive as Tony1 has proven himself to be isn't going to make a constructive contribution to WMF elections. Ground Zero (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of a good reason to revisit this all these years later. If he wants to appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation for permission to vote in board elections or whatever, that's up to him, not us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support unblocking him. I don't see any need to maintain the block. For those that don't know, The Wikipedia Library offers free access to a variety of reliable sources, mainly useful for verifying content in Wikipedia articles. Being blocked anywhere means you can't use it. Tony's made a couple hundred thousand edits at the English Wikipedia, and he has been highly active in the Featured Article process. I don't think that we need to prevent that. Also, it seems a bit strange to jump from a three-day block in 2013 to an indef block six years later. I'm also not impressed with the excuse for the 2019 block. Basically, Andre pinged Tony1, in a comment in which Andre insults an opinion piece that Tony1 wrote on a different site as "a horribly one-sided hack job". Tony1 hadn't edited here for more than five years. Then Andre blocks Tony1 because he's apparently shocked, shocked to discover that authors feel angry when you insult their writing. See the discussion and Andre's edit summary here, in which Andre takes responsibility for triggering the angry exchange while removing Tony's replies (but not Andre's original insulting remarks). I wouldn't necessarily say that blame is equally divided here, but I don't think that a multi-year block is either a necessary or a proportional response to this situation. "Sorry, neither of us should be insulting anyone in public" would IMO have been a more proportional response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that him being able to access the Wikipedia Library was a privilege that he lost. Even if we unblock him, he's blocked on the French Wikipedia as well, and frwiki is known to be very harsh with blocks (they blocked a user (will not get into names) who was blocked only because they made a grammatical error). Even if, I was thinking to remove his email access for spamming our inboxes.
    Meanwhile, we have the same issue with the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, some admins there think that the English Wikipedia is the only WMF project (most of them who think that have almost zero edits outside enwiki and Commons + 1 edit on their meta userpage), and so if a user gets blocked on the English Wikipedia and its preventing them from doing something on another wiki, then they would remain blocked. If the English Wikipedia as a community wants to lose editors from other projects, then too bad. It's too bad that the community that Tony1 is a part has their actions backfire.
    And I think he should still be blocked per NOTHERE and agree with everyone who opposed an unblock. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m confused. I just went to this library, and I can find links to databases such as JSTOR, but JSTOR isn’t part of WP and can be accessed without using WP if you have an account with the third party. And while we are Wikimedia, we aren’t Wikipedia, so I don’t understand why a block on a different wiki would block access to a Wikipedia source. To me the fundamental question here is more why WV-blocked users can’t access a part of WP, rather than whether Tony should be unblocked. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that I can't think of a good reason why Wikipedia would prevent someone from accessing their library because they're blocked on another Wiki project. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether its his voy based block, or is it his French Wikipedia block that's preventing him from accessing the library. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A French Wikipedia block seems the more likely explanation, I agree. In that case, does he need to be unblocked on WV at all? Or is this a matter solely for French Wikipedia? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Wikivoyage doesn't follow Wikipedia's standard offer (which ArticCynda claims is valid on WY), but in this case, Tony having 200k edits on Wikipedia is not a "get out of jail free card". He's never been constructive here, and by him spamming our emails, it's another sign of him not wanting to build a travel guide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went into a deeper look, and all it says was no active blocks. These seem to be the ToS:
  • At their last login, did this user meet the criteria set forth in the terms of use?
  • Satisfies minimum account age?
  • Satisfies minimum edit count? (I don't what is the threshold for this)
  • Is not blocked on any project?
So it does appear that it's a block on any WMF site. Regardless, I'm still not convinced that they should be unblocked. Even if we wanted him to use this library, he lost the privilege of voting in the WMF board elections. This isn't really a Georgian Wikipedia block (I say this in risk of getting blocked on kawiki, but over there, if you criticise the behaviour of admins on kawiki, you get blocked for "personal attacks") SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think we can let him unblocked when he makes comments and edit summaries like this or disruptive comments like this or this towards non-English Wikipedia projects. Other disruptive comments by this user:
  • This thread beggars belief. It is symptomatic of a sick, isolationist, xenophobic culture that cannot tolerate criticism. How did WV get this way, or has it always been like this? [- on UBN]
  • Rschen, yes, you're the one who spat all over me a while ago. Not the kind of behaviour I'd expect from someone like you. [- also on UBN]
  • How more skewed and ego-centric could you get? [- User talk:Tony1]
This one is more ridiculous
  • I've not been uncivil to anyone [- on UBN]
  • You will condemn the site to failure if you hound out people who make systemic criticisms, since those criticisms are one way of thinking through solutions. [- on UBN]
For more matters, I don't feel comfortable unblocking someone who for the most part is disruptive, and makes personal attacks and harsh accusations against other editors. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does "[- on UBN]" mean? Pashley (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On User ban nominations. What's in the square brackets is just where he mentioned it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to plough through archives to be able to judge whether the ban was justified at the time, but it is evident that he is a problem user. There are productive and valuable problem users, and he might be one of those at Wikipedia, but he isn't one over here. If the Wikipedia community feels he is valuable, they can ask us to unblock him; I'd be glad to consent. –LPfi (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's also a problem on the English Wikinews as well, so I guess we're not alone in having to deal with Tony1 SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the unblock reason is mainly because he can't vote in the WMF election or access the Wikipedia Library because of the current blocks, he should be making a discussion at their respective talk pages, not asking the projects to overturn the blocks. Personally, I find that disqualifying someone from voting by having just a single block (whether for a certain length while the election is happening or indefinitely) in any project quite problematic and leads to the spectre of disenfranchisement. So for that reason, I oppose the unblock request but I am sympathetic to his situation. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with focusing on comments people made eight and nine years ago. SHB, I know your account is only eight months old, but imagine what it would be like. Do you want someone, eight or nine years from now, to come back to you and say "Yeah, well, I remember you edit warring with a Steward on Meta-Wiki, with you changing a line in a template that said right there next to the words you were changing, back in August 2021, and in October 2021, you were edit-warring with one of the official Wiki Loves organizers over how to organize the project pages [Also: multiple reverts in less than an hour, while insisting the the organizers were required to explain themselves to you? Really?], so you're obviously NOTHERE and need to be blocked forever". Would you feel a little dismayed to have years-old mistakes thrown up at you, as if you couldn't possibly have learned from those and would certainly make the same mistakes again if you were given the ability to edit?
I don't see a problem with an edit summary of "My prediction is that WV is going to fade over the next few years, and then die". What's the charge: "Failure to be sufficiently enthusiastic"? It feels like we're holding a permanent grudge because someone hurt our feelings (and by "our", I mean "people who were editing here in 2012", which does not include several of us in this discussion). The way to address a prediction of failure is to succeed, not to block people who were skeptical. Rejecting people because they're not enthusiastic about your hobby is something you expect from children. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least, for the most part, when Tony spammed our emails, he could have explained what got him blocked, just like what you need to do when you appeal a Wikipedia block (or really, a block anywhere). In those cases, the three reasons he gave in his appeal:
  • The block prevents me from accessing the Wikipedia Library of non-free academic journals to provide sources for articles at en.WP I edit.
  • The block prevented me from voting in the recent election of WMF board members.
  • Crucially, I do not expect to edit Wikivoyage again.
None of those reasons explain why he got blocked, and what benefit the project will get if you unblock him. What more, he never apologised to Andre and Rschen after this personal attacks directed at him.
Regarding "My prediction is that WV is going to fade over the next few years, and then die", that's a matter of opinion on how you interpret it. In my opinion, that could have been a little more acceptable if he had a good record here, but as Andre mentioned "This user has been a thorn in our side almost from Day 1". If you take cross wiki issues out, and a brand newbie comes and all they do is bicker on how Wikivoyage is going to fail, or negatively distract the community from project goals, then literally, it's easy to assume that they're not here to build a travel guide. Now Tony1 is a little different case since he has 200k edits on the English Wikipedia. But he's not just been an issue here, he's also a problem on frwiki as well, and unblocking him here will do little to benefit us. Given the fact that he has zero good contributions here, I'm not convinced he should get unblocked. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we expect anyone to follow the unblocking rules from another project?
(The enwiki rules are not perfect, and I would not recommend adopting them. The most common complaint is that they expect editors who were wrongly blocked to grovel about how wrong they were to do something that they thought, and still think, was reasonable. If you've got friends among the admins, you can usually get around this, but when the real problem is "hot-headed admin over-reacted instead of asking for a second opinion", most blocked editors are expected to say that they agree with the admin that it is harmful to Wikipedia to have editors who hold a different viewpoint, and that they'll never do that again.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the enwiki things. An IP who has now retired from editing Wikivoyage (, was blocked there for trouting another user per "not here", which is a little silly IMO (Tony is different though, as he's made a tireless amount of personal attacks against Andre). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Signpost piece detailing what a piece of shit the English Wikvoyage is (and that other languages do not exist at all) is a dealbreaker for me. I oppose an unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I think people have a right to write criticisms if our site if they want, but if they do, they can’t realistically expect us to accept those people as part of the Wikivoyage community — they don’t support our goal to be a travel guide. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
130% agree. But even then, their personal attacks against Andre Carrotflower and Rschen7754 in my opinion, was unacceptable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock. Sucks that Tony is unable to do some stuff he wants to do now because of earlier misconduct, but who knew that actions had consequences? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other than COVID and the anxieties that come along with it, and other than just plain being busy with other stuff, comments like those from WhatamIdoing are a good example of a reason I've yet to resume active Wikivoyage editing. Here is someone who, out of one side of their mouth, has waxed rhapsodic about the friendly editing environment here and how much more pleasant it is than Wikipedia, yet on the other hand, seems to be doing everything they can to degrade that friendly environment through a longstanding pattern of making veiled personal attacks on myself and other editors, performatively opposing popular proposals for nonsensical reasons and seemingly only for the sake of fomenting confrontation and obstruction, and rolling out the welcome mat for users whose conduct is uniformly disruptive and abhorrent. I have tried hard to stay patient and continue assuming good faith, largely for the sake of said friendly editing environment, but now it appears the disparagements, which were annoying enough when I was here and active, continue behind my back even in my absence. So now that I'm in a period of inactivity with no defined endpoint, the stakes are lower for me, and I can be more open about the fact that this conduct is hypocritical, bad-faith, and unbecoming a user who has the (WMF) suffix on their [alternate] account. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as TT says, actions have consequences, and Tony should have thought about his actions in the first place. I must say, I'm not a fan of the WP practice of, as some have identified it, groveling to admins in order to be unblocked. The requests for apology haven't worked on WV and I think in future we shouldn't be as willing to give opportunities for apologies. When someone like Tony does what he does, we need to say enough is enough when the harm is done, and not leave the door half-open for these users to continue to cause us problems in the future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've had run-ins with Tony1 on multiple projects (mostly English Wikipedia), some positive, some unfortunately negative. He has a lot of skill when it comes to professional writing and citations which is unparalleled and which is largely why he has not been blocked from the project where he has the most edits, English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he has also made personal attacks as well as attacks on the English Wikivoyage (namely, the Signpost article mentioned earlier). Personally I think that an indefinite block was excessive and I would suggest unblocking him, but warning him that future disruptive conduct would lead to a block (possibly indefinite) being quickly reinstated. But, that is not an opinion that I hold strongly and would defer to the active community on that question. (And as far as the global consequences, he would have to get unblocked on French Wikipedia too in order to be reinstated in the areas he mentions). --Rschen7754 18:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the question of legitimate criticism, I as a former steward really do question the legitimacy of a few Wikimedia projects, and sometimes openly discuss those criticisms, but then I don't go around writing one-sided articles in venues like the Signpost. --Rschen7754 18:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From an envoy perspective, I wouldn't like the precedent that would be set if Tony was unblocked. Other recurring banned editors like AC and LM may also try to seek forgiveness after 8 or 9 years and it will open a can of worms here. From a WMF perspective, I do agree that it's unfair that a block/ban on a WMF wiki prevents a user from accessing the Wikipedia Library of non-free academic journals but that's an issue that should be resolved at the WMF level. There are likely to be other editors who were disruptive and net negatives in one project but net benefits to others and are stuck in a similar position to Tony1. A solution should be sought that will help all editors in the same boat as Tony1 and not just him. Gizza (roam) 01:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AC tried to appeal his ban a couple of days ago as well, so if we do unblock this guy and leave AC blocked, AC will accuse us of discrimination, since he got banned for a similar behaviour. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it would help, I would be willing to advocate access to the Wikipedia Library for all Wikipedia users in good standing (i.e., not blocked there), in the appropriate forum. Since he doesn't plan to make any edits here, his petition for reinstatement shouldn't be relevant. I don't agree that AC was banned for similar behavior. He made edits to destination articles here that were inaccurate, on the basis of bigotry. Tony1 was banned for these two posts, though with the previous baggage of this userban thread and this one, neither of which resulted in bans. It's unpleasant to relitigate this, but my feeling is, he went out of his way to defame the site and was openly hostile to the admins, not simply disagreeing with decisions but going much further than that. In no way do I think we would tolerate that kind of hostile behavior now, the way we did then. All that said, I sincerely wish him well and repeat my offer to speak up on his behalf elsewhere, but not here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I meant "AC was banned for similar behaviour", I was talking in the sense he was disruptive and not what he actually did (both Tony and AC were disruptive, and so both got banned but AC was banned for bigotry, while Tony was banned for personal attacks which are both disruptive). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but to be honest, I don't care what AC or his anti-Wikivoyage allies think of us. It's pretty rich coming from AC to accuse us of discrimination, so that doesn't concern me. I agree with the comments above that we ought to remove this restriction from the Wikipedia Library, which doesn't make sense. If someone is accessing Wikipedia Library who shouldn't, the response is for Wikipedia to block that person. Wikivoyage blocks shouldn't be affecting other websites; that's equivalent to someone being banned from Gmail and consequently not being able to use Google Search. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting about AC, and back to Tony, but even if we manage to remove this restriction from the Wikipedia Library, he needs to get his French Wikipedia block sorted out. And being blocked on the French Wikipedia is a good reason to prevent someone accessing the library given that they are actually Wikipedia, not a sister project. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Do we know if he's contacted French Wikipedia yet? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last edit by him on the French Wikipedia was in 2011, and checking "WhatLinksHere", the only links about him were seen on ANI were in 2009. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - just a quick note here that Tony emailed us and we have whitelisted his account for access to the library, so that needn't be a concern for you here with respect to his block status. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know. I'm glad you did that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-). So the only concern of Tony's was not being able to vote in the board elections, but... as Andre Carrotflower mentioned, that's a privilege, not a right. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked[edit]

After there was consensus to keep you banned, you lashed off with a personal attack here when I merely did my usual janitorial things and hence I've revoked TPA. It's quite clear that you're only here to disrupt the project, so sucks to be you that you've lost the privilege of being able to use your talk page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]