Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also: Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations/Archive

User:FUERDAl on Ferris Wheels

Looks like we may have another F-u-e-r-d-a-i or Telstra sockpuppet on our hands. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Libertarianmoderate. In cases like this where a user’s vandalistic intentions are obvious, there’s no need for a formal vote on whether the user should be banned. Just take it to Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress (which I see you already have) and an admin will take care of it. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Block for repeated bigoted content in article space?

Moved to the main project page

Telstra trying to avoid detection?

Look at the recent edit history of the Szczytno article. Three small edits over the last day, each by a different "number" account, each of which has made exactly one edit (to that very article).

I've seen Telstra behaving like this many times before, and wondered why the heck they're doing it. Does Telstra perhaps think that admins won't notice they're using several accounts, block only the last of them and leave the rest of them usable? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

He has been doing many edits under many names recently, only some are being blocked. I really think people should just forget about this users methods, accept the edits if they are OK, undo if they are not. Blocking the account is the opposite of what is wanted, which is to keep using the same account. I think we just need to tolerate this contributor that has intellectual impairments, only if a bad edit should it be deleted. People are using too much time and effort on this and still only catching about 50% of his edits. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
In Telstra's communications with us, the user seems to struggle with English, and I'm not sure that they are trying to harm the site; I think they want to improve it. At the same time I think blocking Telstra and reverting his/her edits should be our procedure; if we let them edit, they would be even harder to control. If we keep doing what we're trying to do, it should work IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are we playing Whack-a-Mole?

Swept in from the pub

At long last, can someone please adjust Special:AbuseFilter/25? There's absolutely no reason we need to keep tearing our hair out trying to deal with BTCentralPlus manually. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. We're not the nightly entertainment for some loser in Chorley with nothing better to do. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
As if we needed any more reasons to adjust our BTCentralPlus abuse filter, here is another one. I'd do it myself if I knew how. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe someone over at Wikimedia Meta's Small Wiki Monitoring Team know how to adjust filters? --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
surely some admins here know the format of the filter? :-o Andree.sk (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
What do we want the filter to do? Do we want it to disallow edits, instead of merely tagging them? Nurg (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Or is it to add additional IPs to the filter? Nurg (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Chongkian

Swept in from the pub

I had a look at some of his editing history, and unfortunately, he does appear to have have some jingoistic tendencies when it comes to articles regarding Malaysia. To his credit, he did stop his obsession with removing all mentions of Singapore when I brought it up on his talk page and AndreCarrotflower warned him about it. However, he recently made this edit, and this edit where the edit summary suggests that he really doesn't get the point that we are not a tourism promotion agency for either Singapore or Malaysia, and that our purpose is to be a guide that provides information that serves travellers best. I am really reluctant to propose a ban because he is a valuable contributor and has indeed done a lot of good work in our articles regarding Malaysia, but that said, we also can't allow our articles to be unduly influenced by any particular user's nationalistic, let alone jingoistic views. What does everyone suggest we do? The dog2 (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek:I was wondering if you could reach out to him. He seems to be ignoring me, and I suspect it is because I am a Singaporean, and he thinks I'm trying to make Malaysia look bad. The dog2 (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
We've been down this road with Chongkian umpteen times before. When The dog2 mentions that I "warned him about it", he's referring to the most recent message on Chongkian's talk page which specifically mentioned that "this behavior is rapidly leading [him] towards user ban territory". I don't know how much clearer of a message we can send without actually blocking him, so I took the liberty of instituting a three-day one per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks. Hopefully, he will at long last understand that we're not playing around about this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I don't know of a circumstance where someone is not an auto confirmed user would use this page. Because of repeated problems, I've protected this for six months. Feel free to undo this and start a discussion if you object. Ground Zero (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Good call. No arguments here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Competence is required

Swept in from the pub

Given the recent cases by User:Cactusflies22 and User:Gzaqp, I was wondering if we should import the Wikipedia policy w:Wikipedia:Competence is required. I understand that this should be obvious, but perhaps it will be better to have it spelt out clearly as a formal policy. The dog2 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe I made the same suggestion a while back, though I can't remember where. At any rate, I fully support this initiative. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
How would we enforce this? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with a much more narrowly defined policy that focuses only on the ability to understand and write in English sufficiently well to be able to grasp Wikivoyage guidelines and talk page messages. But competence was not the issue in the case we're discussing. Instead, that individual is simply a troll that acts in bad faith to try to waste our time utterly pointlessly. I can think of only one Wikivoyage user who skirts close to the line of incompetence in English while operating in good faith, and this one isn't it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: You mentioned competence at Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations when speaking of User:Cactusflies22. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of banning people because their English isn't perfect except in the most extreme of circumstances though. Local knowledge is welcome here at WV, and we want to encourage locals from around the world to share things about their hometowns with us, and many of these people are not native English speakers. Unless the English is so bad that it cannot be understood, hopefully the native speakers here can be understanding and just help to correct spelling or grammatical errors. The dog2 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@The dog2: could we please stick to the proposal bring made instead of introducing straw man arguments? No-one has suggested banning users "because their English isn't perfect". That is a red herring that just derails the discussion. It isn't helpful to do that. I realise that it sounds like I'm being harsh, but please look at the Wikipedia policy that is being discussed. It describes competence as:
"the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively."
not as having "perfect English". Please stick to the discussion at hand. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I was the only who brought this up, so I know about it. I think we can be a bit more lenient for a travel guide than an encyclopaedia language-wise as we would like to encourage non-native English speakers to contribute information about their respective hometowns that would be useful for potential visitors. But yes, there should be a mechanism to deal with people acting in good faith but unable to make constructive edits. Sure, that guy was just a troll, but I think having such policies spelt out may discourage such trolling. We can guide new users, but we can't be babysitting them on what edits they make. Perhaps by spelling out such a policy, we can make that clear. The dog2 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I think what you've said makes sense, even though I have not yet decided that I support this policy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the need for this policy. The example user given is a vandal that we deal with under existing policy, and the other good-faith user Ikan is referring to shouldn't be penalised in any way when it is easy enough to correct or undo some of his English clangers. When else has an otherwise good-faith user's lack of English ability had a negative effect on Wikivoyage? Or when has such a person, being unable to understand policy, become a problem for this community? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Answer: In some articles about Indonesia. But we've never felt the need to ban him, and I kind of agree that this is a policy in search of a reason for it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Ikan Kekek: For the record, I do not support banning the guy you mentioned. That's why I called for leniency with regard to bad English. I was just concerned about whether or not the troll is exploiting loopholes in our policies. The dog2 (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No, he isn't. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The page in question is not a policy at the English Wikipedia. It is a "supplement", which is basically an essay that explains something (in this case, that explains a guideline, which in turn explains part of an actual policy). IMO it is not a good policy for any place. It's an idea, not a set of enforceable points.
I have never seen any evidence, either in my own experience or in research, that online trolls are discouraged by the existence of policies. Trolls simply don't say, "Oh, I was going to make a pest of myself, but since I see that would be 'against policy', I guess I won't do that!" Instead, they say, "Ooooh, lookit this long list of things that annoy these folks! I wonder which of these banned behaviors would be most fun to try!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Good post. Shall we put this proposal to bed? All we need to do is ban the next sock of this troll more quickly. Nothing to do with the troll's competence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
That's fine with me. The dog2 (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's interesting to read everyone else's take on the pcv vandal (User:Cactusflies22 et al.) I actually don't think he's a vandal in the strict sense of the term, implying bad faith and an intention to disrupt the site. I think he's describable as a "vandal" only because that's the closest category of user that policy allows us to ban. My own intuition, and the little social media investigation I did one day when I was bored (maybe that's an underhanded tactic, but when a person plasters their real name and city of residence all over their userspace while failing to lock down their privacy settings on Facebook, I see that as practically an invitation to snoop), lead me to believe that his professions of good faith hampered by mental illness are genuine, and that this is indeed a case of massive incompetence. And given that all of the foregoing shouldn't mean that we have to continue wasting our time on a user who is evidently impervious to our efforts to reform him into a valuable contributor, a hole in our policy is exposed. I think a "competence is required" policy is the perfect thing with which to fill that hole. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, WhatamIdoing: the same as with Wikivoyage:Deny recognition, I wish you would stop inferring that just because a Wikipedia page is a "supplement" or "essay" or something short of binding policy, that necessarily means its Wikivoyage analogue can't indeed be full-fledged binding policy. We are a different site from Wikipedia and are not obliged to follow their lead on everything. As I see it, the goal of a "competence is required" policy would not be to dissuade incompetent users (who, almost by definition, are oblivious to policy anyway) so much as to make it crystal-clear to site administrators that a userban is an appropriate remedy even in cases like Cactusflies22 that aren't exactly vandalism. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
But in the case of Cactus flies, the poor English wasn't the problem that got him banned. The justification you gave was that he was another iteration of a block-evading long-term vandal, who had previously made threats of self-harm if the community didn't do what he wanted. Further blocks will use the same justification, and rightly so. The other issue which he or a copycat have continued to exhibit is posting the same vague requests for help all over the place. That again is disruptive buzz-killing behaviour, which we can already control using existing policy.
I just don't see that poor English or general incompetence is that big of a problem that we need to legislate against it. The only other example user I can think of, the one who edits Indonesian articles from time to time, doesn't edit war, and does engage in discussion when needed. His occasional garbled edits are an easily-fixed inconvenience, not a terrible problem that we need to invent a new policy for.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Right. No new policy or guidelines are needed to deal with this situation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Consensus? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Please forgive what might seem like obstructionism on my part; I came late to this discussion and want to make my feelings known before we come to a decision.
I think we're barking up the wrong tree by focusing on English proficiency. We actually have quite a few contributors - for example Yuriy Kosygin, Saqib, Lkcl it, and AFlorence (and if any of these users read this, I hope they understand my intent is not to insult their language skills, but to compliment their dedication and to be clear as possible regarding the argument I'm making) - whose English proficiency is deficient enough to require vigilance by copyeditors, yet who are or were invaluable members of our community and in some cases have even been named administrators. On the other hand, we have a user like Cactusflies, who is a native English speaker yet is incompetent nonetheless. I think the benchmark for a "competence is required" policy should be the question of whether a reasonable person would conclude it to be possible to reform a particular problem user into a productive one, irrespective of level of English proficiency and irrespective of whether the user is acting in good faith or bad faith. That leads into my response to ‎ThunderingTyphoons' remarks about "another iteration of a block-evading long-term vandal". It's true that Cactusflies was a block evader, but honestly the feeling I got about him was that he was simply mentally incapable of comprehending our policy, or us when we tried to explain to him why he was being repeatedly userbanned. One has to feel a certain amount of pity for a person like that, and viewed in that light, I don't think his behavior is classifiable in good conscience as "bad faith". It is, however, classifiable as "incompetence" and "not our problem". And that's the central question that IMO a "competence is required" policy is the perfect answer for: what do you do with a user who is not acting in bad faith and is thus not really a vandal, but whose actions are deleterious to the site nonetheless?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Why do we need a new policy for one individual who can be dealt with under existing policies? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
We don't. Andre, it sounds like you are worried that someone might think that admins aren't allowed to do what's right for this site and this community, unless there's a "crystal-clear" statement somewhere that provides explicit authorization for each and every situation. It doesn't sound like anyone else shares that view.
With respect to your earlier comments on enwiki's pages, I was making two completely unrelated points:
  • There was a factual error in the description of the page. If anyone was relying on that erroneous description (e.g., if they planned to repeat the erroneous claim, if that claimed status made the proposal seem stronger because it seemed to be tested and working for another community), then they might want to know that.
  • I personally do not think that page (i.e., the whole page, not just the title or the concept) should be adopted as a policy by any community anywhere. I've no objection to trying to write a different page on that concept, but I wouldn't use that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any real need for such a policy. However if we do introduce one, then it need to be written from scratch. It should focus on how to help editors to learn, and directing them to areas that thay are more competent at. For example you don't need to be able to write English to add lat/longs to listings. There may be editors who would benefit from attending an editathon and getting classroom tution, although this would be directed to WP editing (unless there is ever a WV event). AlasdairW (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... Wow! What next? Requiring high school, college or university transcripts to verify language proficiency or perhaps results from some ILR based test or a letter from your home room teacher or your mom if home schooled and most of all, results from some psychological exam. I don't believe in a new policy being added is in order. (The devil is in the detail(s)). I remember a Slavic phrase translated as "Throw momma from the train a kiss" that makes perfect sense in that particular language because of syntax and word endings or a Ukranian headline years ago about the building of a large derrick translated as a "Giant Ukranian Erection". Attract contributors and assist myself (yes I too make errors of course and am unfortunately not perfect) and others in a friendly manner in order to learn, develope (whoops I added an 'e') content etc. without condemnation and lengthy diatribes as to the use of a word, a comma or even policy. There are plenty of policies and tools if need be to address this issue. Be kind as we all are playing in the same sandbox. - Matroc (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
While I oppose making any policy on this matter, I don't think anyone is saying that all contributors to WV must have Noah Webster's command of the English language. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Right. Nobody here is in favour of going after editors over their English proficiency. We are only interested in going after the trolls, and the disagreement is on whether or not we need additional tools at our disposal for that. The dog2 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it's unhelpful to mischaracterize the arguments being made so wildly. Going back to WhatamIdoing's comment above, I don't necessarily think we need "a 'crystal-clear' statement somewhere that provides explicit authorization for each and every situation" (emphasis mine), but I do think we should err on the side of caution in the case of userbans, which are one of the more extreme measures admins have at their disposal "to do what's right for this site and this community", and which historically we've always avoided doling out absent a truly compelling reason and several extra layers of scrutiny. Let me reframe the issue: regardless of whether we've only yet seen one non-hypothetical user who this policy would be applicable to, what harm is there in clarifying policy? Why intentionally leave any degree of ambiguity unresolved? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Because there has yet to be one single case where this supposed ambiguity has been an issue. This policy is not needed in the real world (of Wikivoyage, as opposed to in theoretical situations that haven't happened) I will be happy to revise my position if and when that ever changes. But with respect to you, and you do have my utmost respect as a Wikivoyager (so much so my phone sometimes autocorrects "and" to "André"), there's no appetite for this proposal - it's time to let it go and move onto other things.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I'll drop the issue for now. But I'm pretty sure I remember some past occasions unrelated to Cactusflies where I've wished CIR was a Wikivoyage policy, so I'll be keeping my eye out for future cases to bolster the argument in favor of this policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: Wikivoyage:User ban nominations archive. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:ChrisJr4Eva87

I should probably mention here that I indefinitely blocked this user for vandalism, although he hadn't yet done much here. He's a cross-wiki vandal and his first edits here were of the same unconstructive and irrelevant nature as his global edits. See deleted user contributions here and global user contributions. If you want to block him for a short period, OK, whatever, but I think that's not a great idea. I've left him able to access his talk page in the extremely unlikely event that he is ever interested in being a constructive editor here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks, guys. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

User:90.244.151.58

Openly stated they were ArticCynda and of course didn't apologize, so what else could be done other than blocking them for 3 months? They were doing great work on places in Dagestan, but how can we possibly allow someone to openly evade a ban, without apologies? Please discuss; if there's a consensus for us to just throw up our hands, rescind the ban and give this user another chance, in spite of his previous disgusting and offensive expressions of bigotry toward Black people, Jews and Muslims and unrepententness, I would respect that. He) was posting great content and if he had just shut the hell up about his previous username, he could have continued. Your comments, please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sort of inclined to add this to the user talk page of that IP address:
You like adding content on this site, right? As I see it, you have two choices: (1) You can apologize for your disgusting, offensive bigoted statements against Blacks, Jews and Muslims and pledge never to post any more of that stuff or let it distort any of your edits, or (2) If you just want to turn over a new leaf, shut the hell up about your former identity and just do good work!
But I think he really enjoys adding a bunch of stuff and then thumbing his nose at us way too much to shut up. If we're really serious about penalizing him, we have to delete all his work. Otherwise, he'll repeat this process ad nauseam, and if we're OK with that, we might as well give up and unblock his former username. I think those are really our two choices: Delete all his work or concede and unblock ArticCynda. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
"He was posting great content and if he had just shut the hell up about his previous username, he could have continued" -- these are always messy cases. I've seen a few on other projects, and they, sadly, never end in a way that leaves everyone happy. While I'm not quite confident enough yet in Wikivoyage policy or the specific case of this user to cast a confident opinion, I do in general tend to err on the side of letting a high-quality content creator do so. Is it possible he could have a trial period? "We'll unblock you for three months [totally random number, adjust as people familiar with the case see fit], and if you're clearly reformed you'll be permanently unbanned; if you return to your original behaviour, you'll be rebanned with prejudice." Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Ugh. This is awful. I argued for trying to work with AC before he was banned, and I was wrong. AC was given chances to apologize and he doubled down. I don't think giving him another one-last-chance is at all a good idea. I would hate to undo all this content, but we can't have this guy here. I don't think we have a choice. Ground Zero (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
He's had a lot of chances, Vaticidalprophet. The last time, he contributed great content on places in a part of Austria and we let it stand. We have to decide whether to concede or actually make it painful for him, because what he's doing is waiting until he's contributed a lot of stuff we'd rather not delete and then thumbing his nose at us. And you should read his reverted content under his former username. It was horrible and intolerable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I won't take an apology from him. He has had his chances and one now is not to be trusted as sincere. On the other hand, there was the suggestion that deleting stuff is anything but denying recognition. Not to get attribution to a single name is partly denying that. I think we'd better just block and forget about it, without deleting content.
We may still have some cleanup to do. I am not confident that Dagestan#Stay safe is written without prejudice: what about cells of Islamic separatists, Islamic fighters and invading extremists? The Chechen are Muslim, but I am uneasy about us drawing parallels between separatists and Islamic extremists. At least I do not trust his judgement in these matters.
LPfi (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
LPfi is right: we cannot trust his judgement on anything to do to Muslims, Black people, Jews, i.e., most of the world. Ground Zero (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I have a big problem with extracting an insincere apology from someone who hasn't shown any remorse or contrition in... what, two years? Three? He's shown us who he is already, and has had abundant opportunity to demonstrate either that we were wrong about him all along, or that he's realised he made a colossal mistake and wants to put things right. Nor is he apparently able to just turn over a new leaf with a fresh account that has no ties to the past; he has to periodically stir up drama, and he has to ensure people know that he's Artic Cynda.
Obviously, I can't decide for the community, but as far as I'm concerned there can be no concession or compromise. Block his IPs and nuke his work.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Dagestan is a Muslim republic. And so, LPfi, you're content to let him repeatedly block-evade and thumb his nose at us? He will unless we make it worthless for him. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not know what would make it worthless for him. Does he sincerely want to contribute good content and succeeding in that is what gives him reward? That does not explain him wanting to make his identity known. Does he want to get credit? Then having to hide behind different names and IPs is not what he wants; he may of course keep track on his contributions off-wiki. Does he want to thumb his nose at us? Probably. But what is more rewarding: our making a big effort on deleting everything or our just cleaning up what we don't trust and getting on? No, I don't know, but that's why I don't think deleting everything is necessarily the better path. –LPfi (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I explained above. He gets off on adding a bunch of stuff we don't want to get rid of and then thumbing his nose at us. That's his repeated M.O., and he does it because he knows he'll get away with it, since he has before. And we're perpetuating it if we don't delete all the articles he creates and revert all his edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought we did revert or delete a lot of the Austria edits. I haven't seen him thumbing his nose, so I don't know at what stage he does that, or towards what part of our reactions. But I think I have said what I have to say in this. –LPfi (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── AC has posted a response at User_talk:90.244.151.58#Blocked, and asked for it to be linked here, which I think is a fair enough request.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This post identifies some of the banned user's objectionable comments. I think it is worth reminding ourselves of his mindset. We've expended a lot of time and energy dealing with him already. Ground Zero (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
So it's up to you all what you want to do with his defensive "apology". It's a very unsavory apology, but it does show effort and a desire to put things behind him and continue to contribute. The question is whether we are OK with allowing a bigot who is "sorry for offending some people" to edit and police his edits in subject matter he could well distort due to his animus toward x, y and z kinds of people. I would respect a consensus decision on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't around for AC being blocked, but I've looked over old racist comments and previous discussions. From my encounters with this user, they have been nothing but helpful, but these comments are appaling, and if they evaded a ban, then they should be punished. However, from what I can see, they have shown remorse and apologised, and while there may be issues of unconscious bias due to racist behaviour previously, without evidence of that occuring currently, I don't believe the edits should be reverted. If there is a process for appealing a ban, which I assume there is, this user should be banned and allowed to go through this process. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a really tough call. There's no doubt that AC's work was of very high quality, at least during those times when it didn't consist of racist and anti-Semitic vitriol. However, said vitriol was really objectionable, and the fact that he spent the next three years repeatedly evading the userban that we imposed on him, even to the point where we had to set up targeted abuse filters to try and catch his edits, certainly doesn't help matters.
I guess the fundamental question on which the decision rests is whether AC is truly remorseful for his actions, or if his apology (I don't think I'd go so far as to call it a non-apology apology, but it's definitely in a gray area) was just a CYA to get us to rescind his userban. But it seems inescapable to me that we can't know the answer to that question without giving AC an opportunity to demonstrate for himself his good faith or lack thereof. I think it's also noteworthy that (unless I'm misremembering) there was nothing bigoted to be found in his post-userban block-evading contributions - most of the time, we never suspected AC was behind those edits until he outed himself. So personally, I'm inclined to say let's try allowing him to return to active editing, on a probationary basis, while keeping a close lookout not only for bigoted comments in his contributions, but also for bigoted comments from anonymous IP addresses or other accounts that bear the stylistic hallmarks of AC's writing. And I would say that a repeat offense should result in an immediate re-application of the userban, irreversible this time. But I'm certainly understanding of anyone's opinion who thinks the ban should remain in effect.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
On one hand, I'm not too keen on letting bigots edit our articles here on WV since we want to serve all travellers regardless of race or creed. But on the other hand, we have no formal rules saying that bigots are not allowed to edit here; the only rules are that bigoted content cannot be inserted into our articles, and users must maintain a modicum of civility in talk page discussions. So on that note, I will be OK with lifting the ban and keeping a close watch on him, but yes, if he inserts any more bigoted content into our articles or talk pages, the ban should be permanent this time. The dog2 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry André and Dog, but the notion of "immediate re-application of the userban, irreversible this time" is nonsensical. We've been down that route already - we're on it now! - and the guy doesn't take no for an answer. By lifting the block, which is already indefinite and irreversible, all we're doing is throwing our hands in the air and admitting "you wore us down, we give up"; anyone else who wants to force their presence on us in future knows exactly what model to follow. The ban was imposed as a community decision, and from the start AC showed no interest in following it, even down to rubbishing the notion that it ever was a community decision. He's not a team player, he doesn't recognise or respect consensus, and his three years late "apology" is lip service.
AC says he wants a resolution. Well let me ask you this: if consensus decides to uphold the indefinite ban, do you think he will consider the matter closed? Do you think that, this time, he really will accept and comply with the community decision and stop editing once and for all?
All that aside from the fact the contributions linked by Ground Zero are utter filth.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not advocating Andre's suggestion, but I would point out that the "apology" does make the decision different from just his wearing us down. As late and problematic as the "apology" is, it does show some effort and responsiveness on his part. Andre is also right that none of his block-evading contributions have had obviously bigoted content in them. Again, I'd respect a consensus decision either way; I just thought it was worth mentioning in what way provisionally ending the block wouldn't be just a concession after the "apology". Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify my comment, when I said I'm OK with lifting the ban, what I mean is that if that is what the community decides, I won't stand in the way. But on the other hand, I'm also not going to go out of my way to advocate for lifting the ban. The dog2 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
If it's irreversible and indefinite already, and this user has repeatedly evaded, then I think we shouldn't reverse it and ban AC and any other evading accounts they make.--LivelyRatification (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons! has asked that, "if consensus decides to uphold the indefinite ban, do [we] think he will consider the matter closed? Do [we] think that, this time, he really will accept and comply with the community decision and stop editing once and for all?" The answer to those questions is clearly no, but what difference is there between that and what's already the case now?
Look, ordinarily I'm the last person to say we should reward the persistence of those with bad behavior. But it's time we be honest with ourselves about the limits of what we're capable of, given our level of manpower and technical expertise. AC is not like LibMod or the Fuerdai vandal, whose edits are so easily identifiable that they get themselves caught and blocked more or less immediately. As I said, we generally never catch on that a given account is an AC sockpuppet until he outs himself - indeed, there are probably a whole slew of sockpuppets that we've never identified at all - by which point that account has usually generated a large volume of informative and well-written content, which we then have to make the Sophie's Choice of either deleting or allowing to remain undeleted in violation of our own policy. And as far as Abuse Filters are concerned, the fact that AC's edits aren't easily identifiable have severely limited our options - the one and only trick up our sleeve, of blocking the phrase "ArticCynda" that appeared when he signed an edit, was easily circumvented by him when he switched to using the acronym AC, which we obviously can't block given how many false positives that would generate. Not to mention that the techies over at MediaWiki haven't exactly been falling all over themselves to respond to our requests for help. So, given all that, I don't really see the point of continuing with the hollow charade that this userban essentially is. And believe me, I wish it weren't a hollow charade, but we need to face facts here.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
If that's really your bottom line, we should delete all the work of self-identified AC socks to make it painful to him. I don't think that's a good reason to rescind a userban. The good reason, if we choose to rescind it, is that he's done good work and avoided blatantly bigoted content since his ban and gave an apology of a kind this time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek - My bottom line is that this userban has proven to be pointless. We have no way of meaningfully enforcing it, nor does our Whack-a-Mole game seem to be fazing AC. The quality of his contributions comes into play only in a secondary way, in that I would still be inclined to stay the course if his (recent, non-bigoted) activity were harmful to the site, as LibMod's, Fuerdai's, and even Telstra's are. But the material he's adding not only isn't harmful, it's downright valuable. And given all of the foregoing, I'm hard-pressed to see further attempts to enforce this ban as anything other than a waste of the community's time. That's really a shame; in fact it exposes a deficiency with potentially very grave consequences. But continuing to use methods that have already proven ineffective to impede the contributions of one specific user doesn't get us any closer to solving the root problem. It just siphons off effort that's best expended elsewhere, for instance by securing CheckUser status for two or more active Wikivoyagers, or getting more adept at using abuse filters. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
But that's just the thing: I wouldn't care about enforcing a ban as long as he didn't state what his former identity was. If you really want a fresh start, you should adopt a new identity, behave well and keep quiet. The other route is to apologize, which he has done after a fashion, and we could choose to conditionally accept the apology and reinstate him on that basis. But I don't like the idea of purely conceding out of weakness, when we have the alternative of removing all his work when he identifies himself - if we don't want to conditionally accept his apology. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, let's be honest, nothing we do is remotely comparable to Sophie's Choice. Nobody is going to die because of this decision. I just want us to make it, pro or con, for the right reasons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm going to say though that there's no rule saying that we cannot allow white supremacists, neo-Nazis, ultra nationalists or whatever edit the site as long as they are not expressing those views in our articles or talk pages, or their user page. See User_talk:Apisite#Your user page for an example on how we handled another similar case, though in that case, the user complied and removed the offending content as soon as we told him/her. I don't have strong feelings about AC's case, but I will say that if we are to lift the ban, he most certainly must be placed under close supervision. I get the feeling that his apology was half-hearted, but that said, as long as he is not expressing those biogoted views on our site, letting him edit would not harm us. The dog2 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I am undecided, but I won't complain if you decide to lift the block. –LPfi (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
But we shouldn't forget the question about block evasion. We blocked him, he's evading the block. Do we want to ignore this and let his edits stand, or decide that we were right to block him and we are going to enforce it ? Ground Zero (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
How would we address that if we choose to unblock him? Say that he must pledge to abide by a renewed block if the proposed probationary unblocking is abused by the use of clearly prejudiced language or content on any page on the site and wait for him to at least go through the motions of making that promise before we unblock him? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that my position has not changed after reading the discussion above. A block is a block. A half-apology isn't enough. If he had actually apologized and shown contrition, then I'd be comfortable with him being here on good behaviour. But I don't think we want even constructive contributions from him. I hope that we are not that desperate that we accept participation of this sort of person. Ground Zero (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm certainly not desperate. I just want us to do whatever we do for good reasons and will respect a consensus on that basis, whether it's to continue the block and remove all his work or to provisionally rescind the block. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to provide some context, here is another bigoted content recent discussion on another wmf-wiki. The issue there was posting of images containing (amongst others) Nazi Swastikas, which many Jewish and non-Jewish people view as a symbol of hate. I hope it is acceptable here to point to "outside discussion"? After all we are considered part of the wikimedia movement. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary

I'm going to try to summarize the above discussion to see if there is any consensus here for a decision. If I misrepresent your position, it is not intentional. Please correct as necessary, and accept my apology. Have I missed anyone? Ground Zero (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Unblock and monitor

  • @Nurg: "unblock with long term parole"

Block and delete

  • @Ground Zero -- enforce the block through deletion
  • @LivelyRatification: "in favour of blocking and deleting"
  • @SHB2000: (90.)"Sorry, but harassers like Wikipedia's w:User:Mangoeater1000 are not welcome"/ with new IP (87.), "trying to take the shit out of us"
  • @Ibaman: "'sorry but not sorry' does not clean this user's slate"
  • @Ikan Kekek:
  • @AndreCarrotflower: "There's no longer any way to argue that AC is operating in good faith"

Consider unblocking after parole

(If AC does not try to evade the block for a period (one year?), consideration would be given to unblocking him.)
  • @ThunderingTyphoons!: "if we agreed with him now to seriously consider lifting the ban e.g. a year from now in return for actually abiding by it for the whole period specified"
  • @ChubbyWimbus: "ThunderingTyphoons!'s solution above, which I think outlines the best path forward"
  • @Vaticidalprophet: "ban-and-expunge is inappropriate for someone who's at least asking for a compromise and willing to cooperate with it"
  • User:Ikan Kekek. I'm OK with this. I'd support expunging his work in the meantime, though, but I'd accede to a different consensus on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Undecided

  • @AndreCarrotflower: "allow him to return to active editing, on a probationary basis" but also "Ikan makes a good point when he says avoiding making more work for ourselves is a pretty lame excuse for looking the other way on bigotry"
  • @LPfi: "remove edits on some topics", leave others in place
  • @The dog2: "as long as he is not expressing those biogoted views on our site, letting him edit would not harm us"

Abstain

The discussion has been open for four days. This looks like a consensus to unblock and monitor, unless there are further comments, or a desire to leave the discussion open longer. Ground Zero (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC) [Update: this consensus no longer exists. ] Ground Zero (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ground Zero - I don't know if I would call this a consensus. Yourself and ThunderingTyphoons! seem to feel very strongly in favor of retaining the ban, whilst The dog2's endorsement of "letting him edit" "as long as he is not expressing bigoted views" seems quite tepid, and my own feeling about AC being "allow[ed]... to return to active editing, on a probationary basis" has wavered in intensity from slightly in favor (i.e. my initial remarks) to more assertively so (i.e. the subsequent ones directed at Ikan Kekek) and back to only slightly (i.e. right now; Ikan makes a good point when he says avoiding making more work for ourselves is a pretty lame excuse for looking the other way on bigotry). I think the best thing to do now would be to amplify this discussion in hopes of attracting more participants, perhaps at the pub or at Wikivoyage:Requests for comment. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we are all struggling with this non-fatal Sophie's Choice. My sense is that the discussion is not really progressing toward a unanimous position, and that canvassing the votes made sense at this point. I do think it is important to make a decision, implement it, and return to building the travel guide. I also think that all involved in the discussion will accept whichever decision is made. We can leave it open longer to see if anyone else has a view. Ground Zero (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: that was a good call to cast the net wider. Although we aren't closer to a decision here, this sort of thing is best done after a consultation of the wider community. Ground Zero (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: After ruminating on this some more, I think I'm better placed in the "undecided" category rather than "unblock and monitor". Let's see if any more users chime in for the next little while and tip the scale one way or the other, but as of now I'd be prepared to say we have no clear consensus, which means the ban remains in place due to status quo bias. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I went out for a walk and found myself wavering towards "unblock and monitor" (but not ready to change my vote yet), and come back to find you and Thedog 2 have wavered away from that position. This is a tough one. Ground Zero (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I've changed my position on this: personally, I'm in favour of blocking and deleting, though how exactly would this work? Say AC added a listing, and someone improved on it, would the entire listing be deleted? --LivelyRatification (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If the listing has been substantially altered by another user, I'd leave it. Otherwise, it goes. This purpose is to make it clear to AC that he is not welcome here and is wasting his time so that he hoes away. That doesn't require expunging 100% of edits, just the large majority of them. Ground Zero (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Don't have any issue with that.--LivelyRatification (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's the thing though. I certainly agree that bigots should not be made to feel welcome here. Racist, anti-Semitic or Islamophobic edits or comments should certainly not be allowed to stand. That said, our number one guiding principle here is Ttcf, and if we just completely nuke all his edits, even if they are useful to travellers, that would violate Ttcf. So let's say he updated information by deleting the listing of a restaurant that has closed down, are we going to pretend that the restaurant hasn't closed down just for the purpose of sticking it to him? So yeah, while I don't have strong feelings about lifting the ban (as in, I don't have any enthusiasm for lifting it, but I'm not vehemently opposed to it either), if his edits didn't actually contain bigoted content, and are useful for travellers, nuking them to me seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The dog2 (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my opinion counts here. But I think we should do a topic ban of everything except the article he was working on. If they choose to edit constructively, then you may as well let them be free. SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Forget what I said earlier, after properly looking, it is block evasion. SHB2000 (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
In response to The dog2's argument above: We routinely revert contributions from the Telstra vandal that may be accurate, because we don't trust them and prefer not to spend the time checking on whether he's yet again violating copyright. So there's a strong precedent for deleting useful information (though we both know the Telstra guy supplies much less content than AC's socks). Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Isn't this IP from UK ref ??? SHB2000 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
We revert the Telstra edits because we cannot trust them. Untrustworthy information is not useful. And that's why I'd remove most of AC's edits on some topics, such as on how people in South Tyrol feel about the territorial conflict, the conservatism in Tyrol and whether Chechen separatists are Islamists. I think these contributions were written in good faith, but with a viewpoint that may make them biased. When it comes to other edits, I have no reason not to trust the information. –LPfi (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@LPfi: this sounds like "unblock and monitor" to me. Is that fair? Ground Zero (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm somewhat in the middle re banning or unbanning. I think ArticCynda's good content should be kept, even if he is rebanned. The issues that come to my mind are (1) good content vs unwanted content (2) community disruption (3) time demands on other editors for monitoring edits and behaviour. ArticCynda failed for unwanted content in the past but has contributed good content recently. Community disruption doesn't seem a particular issue (please correct me if I'm wrong). I might have thought time demands on others would be an issue, but that doesn't seem a major concern above (is it?). I think that blocks should be used to protect the WV project, rather than as eternal punishment for past wrongs. Normally I would consider block evasion as grounds for simply reblocking, because the behaviour that originally led to the block is likely to resume. As that behaviour is not happening at present, maybe ArticCynda has earned parole. I'm in the middle on banning - I'm not too bothered either way, but if I am to come down on one side, I say unblock with the understanding that ArticCynda is on parole long term and any admin may reblock without notice if he resumes any editing of an unwanted nature. I'm open to corrections or counter-arguments, as I wasn't involved in the indef ban discussion in 2018. Nurg (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to GZ for the voting list; it makes things clearer. I confirm that if consensus were to go against me, I would accept it and find a way to work with AC. However, my opinion that this would be a bad idea in the first place hasn't changed.
I'm not unsympathetic to warnings against throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and do for instance look the other way on the rare occasion a Telstra edit has improved a page. But if we don't delete AC's work, then we might as well lift the ban, because blocking a series of IP addresses with no other consequences is obviously not going to deter him. That is why if we are serious about maintaining a ban, the work has to be nuked wherever possible.
Proposal: The one thing that would change my mind that the remorse/regret/whatever is sincere - or at the very least that AC has some respect for this project - is if he actually took the current ban seriously. He hasn't up till now, but what about going forward? Like if we agreed with him now to seriously consider lifting the ban e.g. a year from now in return for actually abiding by it for the whole period specified, with no cheats, then I would be much more comfortable with the idea of giving him a second chance. To use a horribly crude analogy, you "earn parole" by serving time, not by pulling multiple escape attempts. Yes, I know that blocks are not punishments, but they are supposed to be used by the "blockee" to reflect on their mistakes and consider how they can change their behaviour in order to make their return to the project productive and worthwhile. You can't reflect or think about changing without actually spending some time away from the environment in which you made the mistakes.
Without this period of a genuine block, I have no confidence that AC won't just wait out any "parole" we grant him for a few months, then quietly start inserting hate speech into WV again.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I still don't believe that hos apology is sincere, and I still don't trust him to leave his bigotry at the door. I am not convinced that we want or need his ilk here. Ground Zero (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe have a discussion with AC? And ask him to confess on what he did. SHB2000 (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the apology he offered. You can decide whether you find it to be sincere and sufficient to apologize for these posts. Ground Zero (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
To address two side points in this discussion: Yes, SHB2000, all users' opinions count. And I, too, let the Telstra guy's edits stand when they're obviously helpful, like when he corrects typos or bolds the first instance of the name of an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Is that Telstra guy Brendon John Williams, which @KevRobbAU: brought up last month being caught up in the filter? SHB2000 (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the very same. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
But isn't this a UK IP??? SHB2000 (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not usually get involved in userban conversations, but I have followed this discussion with mixed thoughts up until I read ThunderingTyphoons!'s solution above, which I think outlines the best path forward. The anti-Semitic jabs are obviously concerning, but if Xsobev is correct in that link provided by Ground Zero that some of the information is also completely fabricated then that is also a great concern. If they were to do it without the blatant bigotry, it'd be difficult to detect and could potentially remain in an article for a long time. Given that the user has never respected the community's consensus, I don't think it makes sense to reward negative persistence by lifting the ban right now. I think that before any "probation" can even be considered, the user has to show that they respect the decisions of the community (the same one they want to join, after all) by respecting the userban first and foremost, so the ban should remain for some period of time (ThunderingTyphoon suggested 1 year) before any discussion of lifting the ban is worth discussing. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks CW ^^
Does anyone else have thoughts on my proposal above? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree with your proposal, which reminds me a lot of enwiki's w:WP:Standard offer. I've been following the discussion privately and continuing to personally believe that ban-and-expunge is inappropriate for someone who's at least asking for a compromise and willing to cooperate with it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Yet another block evasion by AC. I am no longer abstaining. As far as I'm concerned, fuck the guy. Using yet another IP address to blatantly block evade while we consider whether to allow his conditional reinstatement is the last straw. Let's delete all his work and be done with him for good and all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed 110%. Ibaman (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, he's just trying to get the shit out of us and lets nuke all his work. SHB2000 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm off the fence too. There's no longer any way to argue that AC is operating in good faith nor, frankly, even that this has much to do with the content of our site, at least in his mind. He's simply trying to make fools of us. Needless to say, we are not fools. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus

I think we have a strong consensus now to enforce the ban by deleting AC's work. Here is a link to their edits. Ground Zero (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

So does anyone object to deleting Khasavyurt, Buynaksk and Kaspiysk? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a strong consensus to block and delete, so I think you can go ahead. I rolled back AC's contributions to Akhty, and built up the article using various Wikipedia articles without reference to what AC had added. Ground Zero (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: There are still those interested in taking part in this (per the Pub). Also, there is a fresh discussion that I have been having with AC in which he expresses some willing to abide by my proposal. That is obviously irrelevant if there's no wider appetite for my proposal, but I don't get the impression that many of you have properly considered it. It may provide a solution to this that doesn't result in yet more wasted time trying to catch, block and revert a hundred IP addresses.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The IPs are from different providers. Do we have some reason to believe the recent edit is by him? –LPfi (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The IPs are routed along the same path, until my requests hit a firewall. I suppose AC has been following this discussion and seen the objections about evading the block. On one hand, he might have felt obliged to comment after having worked on the article, but on the other he did it as if he were an established part of the community. I feel doing it that way was a provocation and I suppose keeping the block for the suggested one year is necessary if we want to make an impression of being serious. If we are accepting his apology we should reevaluate the block after that. –LPfi (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Or then he did not notice or understand that viewpoint and just tried to be extra helpful, to be accepted. Anyway, I suppose we have to make him understand that he is banned, not just disallowed from using his username, as a first step to possibly lifting the ban, if that is what we decide. –LPfi (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think there is a strong consensus to block and delete, and that the discussion has run long enough, but I will defer to ThunderingTyphoons!'s request above and not delete anything more for the time-being.

If the consensus to block and delete does not change, here is a list of work to be done (I was working on this before TT interjected, so I'll post it here in case we need it later): Ground Zero (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

These articles have significant contributions by AC that should be expunged:

I will stipulate that if AC absolutely stops editing this site at all (except for the one user talk page) for a period of at least 6 months, I would support giving him probationary parole and thereby conditionally reinstating his account. But he has to do the time, not use yet more IP addresses or socks and continue to thumb his nose at us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I've removed his contributions from the last two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus -- 2nd round

This conversation has stalled somewhat, making it difficult to know whether consensus has changed, whether the majority of you still want to maintain the indefinite block and revert policy, or simply whether discussion fatigue has, understandably, set in.

As far as I can tell, AC has been true to his word that he would refrain from editing while this remained unresolved. Would it be acceptable to the community to try out the "genuine block" period with a view to allowing a probationary return once the period expires? If so, should the period be six months, as suggested by user:Ikan Kekek, 12 months as suggested by me, or another length of time? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

My absolute minimum is 6 months. I'm absolutely not opposed to a longer effective ban. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
My suggestion_is probably minimum 9 months. Though I'd prefer an indefinite block.SHB2000 (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I still don't think that this is a good strategy. "We're going you ban you permanently. You don't like that? Well, how about 6 months then? Is that okay with you?" Ground Zero (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I mean, let's see for 9 months and if he chooses to violate that then permanent ban. SHB2000 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Part of the idea is that it's unlikely his ego will allow him to avoid block-evasion for a lengthy period of time, but if he does, he did sort-of apologize. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy with the genuine block/probationary period model (much moreso than I am with a revert model, but see "discussion fatigue" and "this has all been litigated"). I'm inclined to nine months as a sweet spot. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus (2nd Round Table)

Block and delete

  • @Ground Zero:
  • @SHB2000: - I still feel like he's trying to make fools of us, but we aren't fools

Let the ban be for nine months and then we'll decide

Undecided

Further discussion

Hi there, decided to put another similar table like Ground zero's previous one. Feel free to add your name and add your quotes here. SHB2000 (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

With regard to a set term, what exactly is proposed - to change the indefinite block to a fixed term block, or to maintain an indefinite block with it to be reviewed after so long? Nurg (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like the proposal is to check after that term to make sure he hasn't block-evaded, with his account provisionally unblocked if it appears that he didn't, but with the indefblock immediately reinstituted if he subsequently states that he did block-evade during that period. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I would hope we'd be keeping track in real time, so wouldn't need to check at the end of the period. Of course if AC admitted to block-evading, then we'd bring the indefblock back straightaway, but I don't think he would be stupid enough to do that.
As to the question of whether to change the block timer or not, either would work. If we go down this route, I'll be setting my own reminder for the date we decide to review the block.
But as things stands, the vast majority of users are still down as undecided, and if that is a true reflection then people either need to make their minds up (preferably before we all die), or we just declare a 'no consensus' and revert to status quo indefban.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
He would be that "stupid" - that's been his M.O. over and over again! If the consensus is to maintain the indefban, we need to delete his contributions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
True, but the idea here is to seek an undertaking from AC that he won't edit for the period of time specified (be it nine months or whatever), as a way to demonstrate he respects and accepts this community's judgement, and as an opportunity to demonstrate that his apology means something. This is different from the indefban, which was imposed without his agreement, at a time when he didn't even write half-hearted apologies for the bigoted edits. If AC doesn't agree to the terms, then my proposal doesn't work, and shouldn't go ahead.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)