Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions can be found at

New sockpuppet

FYI, everyone: relevant difference, user contributions. I'm falling asleep, so I can't do a thing about this now. Thanks, everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edits I checked were unproblematic (except the expedition registration) and nearly all of them are reverted now. For IPv6 addresses one should usually check a range, but it seems only one address has been used. –LPfi (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't revert most of these, which appear to be harmless. We should patrol for the .01% chance that typical AC bigotry appeared in certain edits. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted the edits because we do not want this banned user to evade the ban imposed on him. And to remind everyone, he was banned for making anti-Islamic and anti-Semite edits to articles, for refusing to apologize, for making abusive comments about other editors, and for block evasion. From the beginning, we have acknowledged that many of his edits are valid, but that we don't want this kind of toxic personality in our midst. A ban is a ban. If we allow his valid edits, he will escalate to bigotry again. Don't be fooled into believing otherwise. Ground Zero (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. That's his pattern. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that so? It sounds possible, but I haven't noticed it by myself. I think I would need one or a few links to obviously bad edits from after the ban to be definitely convinced (if you remember some article where it happened, I suppose I could dig them up myself). –LPfi (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand. After a user is permanently banned, what does it matter whether the edits are good or bad? Hasn't the user been banned from editing? His [ request to be unblocked[ was rejected just three months ago. Ground Zero (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know. But that time it was just "you don't get another chance". I am not sure I did the right thing in not asking for another chance for him (at that point or earlier, when he clearly showed he was ready to work for one). If I am convinced he did not once and for all stop adding bigotry to WMF sites I can leave those thoughts behind. –LPfi (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we could ban AC from making any edits here, I would be all in favor. But I think reverting numbers of minor edits is not the best use of time for our travel guide. It's not even helpful, as this is useful travel information. I am disgusted, for lack of a more precise word, by AC's (continuing) behavior, but I can't see how WV is improved by reversing scores of edits made by an account which we wouldn't even recognize as AC's if not for identifying him/herself. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, I want to note another point: we can't sow division within our community over this. I don't support "another consensus" on AC because we've had too many which in the long run, haven't been productive or else we wouldn't be discussing this again. I think it's too late to talk about giving AC new chances. I say we block AC on-sight if s/he ever identifies self in a post but only revert major ban violations, such as articles started by AC, or offensive comments. Minor edits such as those reverted aren't worth reverting, IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relevant difference, LPfi. And Selfie City, I don't understand the reason you want to reargue something we have had consensus on. Why did we undo all the edits of previous socks of this disgusting user, if you're going to suddenly turn soft? If you want to take the responsibility to personally restore certain edits by making them your own, that's your business, but I suggest you withdraw your proposal and think carefully about whether you want to reopen this discussion again if you don't want to "sow division within our community over this". Because as far as I can see, other than you, the only person who really objects to this is the offender himself, in yet another sock. You can predict that like clockwork. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Revert all. Hard block. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hard-blocked the /64 SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, SHB, if this range block resolves the issue, I’m happy. I didn’t know a range block could be effective against AC but as this should prevent further editing that disrupts the community, this is preferable to my proposal to ignore some of AC’s edits. I was not aware of the recent antisemitic edits. That could be anyone, though, as AC isn’t the world’s only anti-Semite. However that user’s edits are concerning to our community and should be reverted on sight as always. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The range block is as effective as a block of a single IPv4 address. It won't stop him, but is probably a prudent measure anyway. I suppose we need to continue reverting his edits, but I don't think it is important to revert every single one. On repeating the edits: if they are minor (not reaching the copyright threshold) reverting and repeating them is not problematic copyright-wise, but I'd prefer an approach where the articles are copy edited and improved independently, perhaps checking afterwards if something essential was forgotten. Either approach lets him choose the articles or groups of articles to look over, which is less than ideal, but in the case of Nigeria and other article groups with active newcomers, we don't want to confuse newcomers by just reverting. –LPfi (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reverting AC's edits will frustrate him and discourage him from editing. Accepting his edits will encourage him to continue contributing here. Let's not do that. I've been spending time working with the Nigerian editors to improve their contributions. I think that is time well spent. If others want to spend their time copyediting and improving the edits of a banned bigot, they can do that. Ground Zero (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asume good faith and reread my post. I don't think our missing a few copy edits of his will spoil the effort. And I said I'd prefer people improving those articles (after the reverts) without regard for his edits rather than first reverting and then repeating his edits. –LPfi (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not assuming bad faith of you, LPfi. I would never question your commitment to Wikivoyage, and I am sorry that you read it that way. I am saying that you can choose to contribute to Wikivoyage in whatever way you want (and I know that it will be in a constructive way). I choose to contribute differently, as is my prerogative as a volunteer. I will continue to revert edits we believe to be made by AC, which is consistent with the decision to ban him from editing. If you or other editors want to edit those articles afterward to improve them, doing so would improve Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selfie City, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not a horse. There are a limited number of vandals that have particular patterns. Let's not try to find ways to talk past the issue at hand with demurrals that are not credible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support reverting all edits of racist banned users including AC and Libmod as a matter of principle. Yes it is more work but we have enough admins willing to take on the work from comments above so capacity is not an issue. On the other hand, I can understand not reverting all of the minor edits (especially if they are net improvements) of editors who are merely a nuisance, like Telstra/BJW. I don't think the potential benefit of deterring the editor here would outweigh the hassle required to revert the edit and then re-add the content or fix the typo again. Gizza (roam) 03:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree entirely. When I see genuinely good edits by Brendan, I keep them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New sockpuppet

Swept in from the pub

I'm awake, probably briefly. Admins, et al., please have a look at Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations. Thanks, and in case I didn't mention it before, Happy and Healthy New Year to everyone, and I hope it will be relatively reasonable to travel (keeping in mind the very big problem of carbon footprints) soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably handled there by now. –LPfi (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do we do with Tyrol?

Continuing on from Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2022#Lermoos with LPfi and myself, I'm starting this discussion here because Tyrol and its region structure was largely organised and written by AC using IP socks after he was banned.

There was clear consensus that was an AC sock as per the VFD discussion. I was going to ask whether was also AC, but I'm now almost certain that this is, and this all boils down to one reason: this IP added a banner on Wattens on 17:24, January 14, 2020, cropped by ArticCynda on 12:29, January 13, 2020. The IP is currently globally blocked as an open proxy (and one that was likely misused by AC), but many of their edits and contributions remain.

It's also very likely that this user might have used another IP and managed to get away with it, but I'm not certain about this.

This brings me to my main question, what should we do with these contributions. On one hand, reverting all these edits would mean significant losses and changes to our Tyrol article, but on the other hand, a ban is a ban.

Other thoughts?

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it seems on further inspection that SelfieCity had made several merge proposals but these never went ahead (but it's good that someone was aware of this). I wasn't active in 2019, but am I correct in saying that Wikivoyage wasn't as hasty as it is now in dealing with them block-evading (and that's completely fine, IMO; FWIW, they only started to seriously kick the dirt on us after their unblock request was declined)? That still doesn't mean we can't discuss them today, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think loosing significant contributions from good-faith users is worse than keeping some of banned users. Thus, where edits are mixed and reverting just the latter is hard, or it is unclear what edits are by whom, let the edits stay. I am afraid we still need to delete a lot, unless we decide to let the older work stay. As a result of the Leermos discussion linked above, I am neutral to what to do and will not delete a new batch myself.
When we have deleted or reverted what needs to, let's call that a clean-enough table and work from what is left. The subregions of Tyrol should be reasonably large (admin districts?). I think it is better to have nine subregions than to have fewer subregions with more valleys each, at least as long as we don't have articles on the individual valleys. Do we even have any significant non-IP contributor to these? The valley articles seem to have been introduced by
These subregions can be split by valley when there is enough content. In a first step, we can organise information in the subregion by valley, splitting out only those valleys that have (or get) proper region or rural area articles (depending on amount of content).
I don't think it is reasonable to organise the top subregions based on how much content we happen to have. If we do that, we need to reorganise any time somebody starts to add content for some part of Tyrol
I assume the merges were proposed as a result of the unfinished IP work (they are mentioned only in passing at Talk:Tyrol), and thus kind of moot if we now reorganise the hierarchy.
LPfi (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, here are the three valley articles they have created:
Have I missed any others? Stanzer Valley is currently a redlink (linked in Tyrol), but its content is covered in St. Anton; thankfully, SelfieCity has removed the banned user's work on St Anton so that's one fewer article we have to worry about. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Those are the valleys linked from Tyrol as subregions. If there remain any valleys as orphaned regions or extraregions, that can be handled when they are found, and it doesn't affect the reorganisation. If the cities are to be kept (I haven't checked to what extent they have been edited by this user) and we use the districts, we have something like this (see Talk:Tyrol#Sub-regions - ideas):

Tyrol districts and destinations

Cities: 1 Alpbach, 2 Fieberbrunn, 3 Landeck, 4 Mayrhofen, 5 Reutte, 6 St. Johann in Tirol, 7 Zirl Zirl on Wikipedia, 8 Völs Völs, Tyrol on Wikipedia, 9 Innsbruck, 10 Igls, 11 Hall in Tirol, 12 Wattens, 13 Schwaz, 14 Jenbach Jenbach on Wikipedia, 15 Brixlegg Brixlegg on Wikipedia, 16 Wörgl, 17 Kufstein, 18 Maurach, 19 Pertisau, 20 Achenkirch, 21 Steinberg am Rofan Steinberg am Rofan on Wikipedia, 22 Ischgl, 23 See, 24 Galtür, 25 Kappl, 26 St. Anton, 27 Lienz, 28 Kals

Other destinations: 1 Ellmau, 2 Kaunertal, 3 Ötztal Ötztal on Wikipedia, 4 Pitztal Pitztal on Wikipedia, 5 Stubaital Stubaital on Wikipedia, 6 Stubai Glacier, 7 Zillertal Zillertal on Wikipedia, 8 Eng, 9 Silvretta Silvretta Alps on Wikipedia

It seems there indeed are some issues with this division: three of the districts only have 1–2 listed destinations and the Lower Inn Valley stretches across three districts. However, there certainly are more possible destinations also in these districts, and the Lower Inn Valley is special, not necessarily ideal for a "valley" article. I don't know enough (and didn't do the research) on whether there are other valleys that might pose problems.

This division would keep the subregions in the 7±2 range and no region would have more than 7+2 cities (actually they have max 7 as of now). There is space for growth and there are no holes. If some more valleys do cross district borders, we could adjust the borders in the text of the affected articles; I assume such adjustments would be minor. If I am wrong, we should probably reconsider.

(I assume this discussion will be moved or (partially?) copied to Talk:Tyrol.)

LPfi (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for notifying me about this. I had completely forgotten about these proposals, although I vaguely remember the discussion as a whole. My opinion of AC has evolved since the initial ban nomination as more information surfaced, and in particular 1) when the Holocaust remark emerged and 2) when AC started evading the ban that was in place.
I can't remember how many merge proposals I put forward and how much of the content in those articles was written by AC.
I would support removing the work by AC, who is, after all, a banned user. Unfortunately, Tyrol will always be a target of AC's edits, but other than revert, block, and ignore (?), there's little we can do. At this point, though, I'm confused as to who's AC and who isn't. If we could have (perhaps internally) a list of IPs definitely owned by AC, we could go ahead and methodically delete all their contributions from these articles and leave it at that. If we don't know that a contributor was AC, that contributor's edits shouldn't be deleted, in my opinion. Deleting merely on the suspicion that someone edited an article in one of AC's contribution areas smacks of the Moscow Show Trial approach in which all that needs to be said is "AC" before a mass of content is thrown into the memory hole.
That said, the two IP addresses provided seem like straightforward cases: one is known to be AC and the other is globally locked and quite likely is AC as well. I'd support deleting all contributions of both of these IPs. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really have anything to add except that if the existing hierarchy makes sense to non-AC users familiar with Tyrol, we should keep it, and if it isn't, we shouldn't. Contributions by this block-evading user should all be removed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no sensible existing hierarchy. Tyrol didn't have subregions before started to create them, and the subregions created were valleys. Those subregions probably make sense, but they are too many. When the valley articles have been deleted all two dozen city articles, plus five that redlink and some other destinations, are directly under Tyrol. The valleys they created are treated as quasi-regions, but the rest of North Tyrol, most of it, is just one quasi-region. I reverted Ischgl and did some minor copy editing. This was easy, as later edits were just copy edits to the added content. It is more difficult when valuable info has been inserted, such as updates to listings to be removed. I don't know to what extent the revert should be explained in the edit summary, now the revert looks like vandalism. –LPfi (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See (Tyrol), Galtür and Kappl were created by and later contributions are just copy edits etc. They have probably contributed heavily also to many other city articles. –LPfi (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If their hierarchy doesn't make sense, it's no problem to remove it. In terms of listings, if you can confirm them, I think it would be OK for you to reinstate them in your own words as your own edit, but let's see whether anyone objects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think their hierarchy needs the intermediate regions (I don't know how many valleys there are, but I think there are many more than nine), and without the bottom level ones (the valleys) and local knowledge, I think the districts are the most sensible division. They might have come up with some good solution, but they never got that far, I think.
I won't put the listings back: confirming them is not necessarily straight forward, and that would still be building on their work. If you think it is OK to insert material from before the revert, that makes things easier, as I think some newcomer might readd content from the history.
LPfi (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SelfieCity: I do maintain a list of IPs AC used for User:SHB2000/IPs, but it only includes IPs used after June 18, 2022. AC is well-aware of this list and has even updated the log themself (and non-mainspace targets of sockpuppets are useful, aren't they?). The scope of that list can certainly be expanded to include IPs used by AC before June 18. For the reason, I'm happy to email you – I'm 90% sure that AC already knows why I keep this log, but in case AC doesn't, I prefer not to disclose the reason onwiki. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LPfi, I don't think re-adding content added by AC unless you check the listings and re-add them in your own words is OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as the contributions are in the public history, anybody can re-add them without checking or rewording, and reverts of good-faith editors who do that need to be explained – quite awkward. I am not going to check whether the ceiling of St. Nicholas Church is richly decorated with frescoes from the hand of Anton Kirchebner, nor rewriting that in other words. I think we can trust them on the facts (now, not the old articles), and I think their prose is good. Checking and rewriting would mean that there will be articles on the places they wrote about, be it towns or listings. Not having their own content, attributed to them, is hardly important for them, otherwise they would edit as logged in. I'd much prefer that they'd stop editing (SHB said they haven't, but I haven't verified that) and we then could keep their old contributions. –LPfi (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-adding everything would effectively nullify the decision to get rid of his edits, so that would not be OK, and expecting him to stop socking and editing is like expecting a drug addict to suddenly go clean - it might happen, but it would be foolish to expect it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continuing on what Ikan Kekek mentioned, the only ways we can actually prevent him from editing is by:
a) the wiki-equivalent of "force". That is, using blocks, protections, the EF, and so on.
b) not letting him mislead other users and admins on other WMF projects. I was nearly caught up in a similar situation a few months because of AC's trolling. Thankfully this user knew what happened, but I have for some time, kept an eye out for m:Special:Contributions/ArticCynda. I realise this might come off as canvassing, but have a look at their comments at m:Requests for comment/Global ban requirements.
c) not being afraid to call this user out for their behaviour. In other words, we cannot simply ignore this user, even though it may be against WV:DENY. This might seem counterintuitive, but we should not be afraid to create open lists like User:SHB2000/AC SP or User:SHB2000/IPs.
d) not treating AC like your normal vandal who just inserts gibberish like "this place sucks" or even LTAs like GRP because while AC is an LTA, AC is not a vandal (in the Wikimedian context). We need to be super careful in monitoring certain areas like Tyrol, Dagestan, Murmansk Oblast, and subjects they're interested in.
I try and adhere to these four points when dealing with him. I've tried to not list this per WV:DENY, but I think the further I try and not post this, it just makes the situation worse, and he'll use it as an opportunity to supposedly "expose" what the English Wikivoyage's actions that he cherry-picks as unjustifiable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protection for Tyrol?

I realise this idea might seem absurd, but I propose we indefinitely semiprotect Tyrol for a few reasons:

  • There's no pattern as to when AC chooses to edit, so semiprotecting the article for whatever time period won't stop them from editing the article.
  • Nearly all IPs that edit Tyrol are AC's IP sockpuppets.
  • This prevents misidentifying new genuine good-faith IP users as AC (and this has happened with various IPs who were suspected of being Brendan when in reality they were not).

Some disadvantages:

  • As I mentioned earlier, genuine non-AC IP socks won't be able to edit the article. However, we can add an edit notice explaining what to do for new IP/non-autoconfirmed editors.
  • It doesn't prevent AC using accounts (e.g. the Luke90x series of accounts). I've made a list of suspected and confirmed AC socks on User:SHB2000/AC SP.
  • This doesn't solve the problem of AC editing Tyrol's city and subregion articles

I am completely aware that this is supposed to be a travel guide that anyone can edit, but I feel more strongly about preventing a banned bigot click the edit or publish changes button.

Other thoughts? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We could semi-protect the region article and everything within the region.
How many low level destinations are within Tyrol? Do we need subregions at all? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the map above for currently linked destinations, 27 bluelinks if I counted correctly. There are many places without articles. w:Tyrol (state) says there are 15 towns (of 7,000–20,000 inhabitants, except Innsbruck, together some 40% of the population, it seems). The district Reutte, for which we have one city article, has 32,000 inhabitants distributed over 37 municipalities of 100–2,000 inhabitants, except Reutte with 6,000. –LPfi (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Category:Tyrol, there are 23 articles directly breadcrumbed to Tyrol, minus the four region articles making that 19. Additionally, there are 3 articles breadcrumbed under Achen Valley, 7 under Lower Inn Valley‎, 3 more Paznaun Valley‎, and 2 under Ziller Valley‎.‎ This totals up to 34 city articles plus 4 region articles, making that 38.
I'm not sure whether it's worth protecting all 38 articles, keeping in mind that AC has a list of sleeper socks (I likely suspect they will use one of the two accounts listed here). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the edit notice: I used to be quite active in commenting on inaccuracies etc. on web pages I frequented. As they started to require "simple free" registration, I first complied, but after a few times I got fed up, and now I never leave comments unless I already am registered (such as at Wikipedia) or a comment can be left by just clicking a comment link. I even don't leave edit requests on WMF sites, unless there is some severe issue. I assume that if passer-by editors cannot add their contribution with minimal effort, they won't leave it. Such a notice will help only those who probably already have an account, not logged in just because they are in a hurry or have an insecure connection – and they will leave the comment to until they are logged in again, by which time they might have forgotten about it. –LPfi (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we split it into three or four regions different from AC's? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm neutral about this. On one hand, I'd like to leave no trace of the bigot's work, but on the other hand, if it does not make sense from a travel perspective, then we're inadvertently making the situation worse for the traveller. If anything, I would prefer restoring the pre-AC version of Tyrol (essentially this version). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the basic idea here, mainly because identifying sock puppets is often difficult or dubious & this reduces the problem without requiring identification. I will leave working out details to those more involved. Pashley (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about dividing it into the regions on Wikipedia? Landeck District, Reutte District, Imst District, Innsbruck Region, Schwaz District, Kufstein District, Kitzbühel District, and Lienz District per w:Tyrol (state)#Administrative divisions could be used. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like a good idea. Would anyone (that's not AC) be willing to implement the regionalisation? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. I don't know the region, so I left the destination list more or less alone, removing just some redlinks or redlinked destinations and perhaps adding some that looked prominent on the map. I assume there are a lot of places to add, and whether to write about a town with surroundings or about the valley and the town in it should be decided by those that actually write about it. I think the current state works as a basis, and adjustments can be done later, as people work with the region. If somebody wants to check whether there are contributions to be removed, please do it soon, so that we have a stable basis. I'd especially check Understand and Talk; I remember some questionable content in some of the Tyrol articles. I think both Tyrol and South Tyrol, and perhaps some more, should be checked; there might also be other users adding questionable content to them. –LPfi (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, LPfi! Looks much better now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Swept in from the pub

Any input on Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations#What do we do with Tyrol? would be appreciated in regards to dealing with a banned user's work (all made after they were banned). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]