Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations/Archive 2021-2023

Previous archived discussions can be found at Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations/Archive 2006-2017 Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations/Archive 2018-2020

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)

• Good call. Ground Zero (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Pashley (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think there's going to be any disagreement with your decision here. This kind of situation is exactly why Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban explicitly allows for indefbans of users who are indefbanned on other wikis without passing through the usual userban nomination process. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:90.244.151.58 (ArticCynda)

Discussion in the pub

Swept in from the pub

There is a discussion underway here about what to do about ongoing contributions by a previously banned editor. Other views would be appreciated. Ground Zero (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, this editor remains banned as of now, but that's under discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

We'll have to look out for all IP's from the UK. SHB2000 (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Since I am only a very part-time participant here I wonder if anyone is interested in my opinion? If so, is there a summary of diffs where a new participant in this discussion can come up to speed? (The discussion started on March 17 and consumes many pages as it stands today). Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech:: I can only answer your first question. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion, and the more people who do, the better.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response, and for pinging me. I can help get together some diffs, time permitting. I wonder if it would be acceptable to insert anchor templates to facilitate this endeavor? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It's up to you, but I think your time would be better spent just reading the discussion and deciding whether you have an opinion, as I don't see anyone else asking for a list of diffs. Anchor templates might make the discussion difficult for others to read and make sense of. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: :This post identifies some of the banned user's objectionable comments that got him banned in the first place. He has returned to editing without signing in, and signs his posts "AC". He offered an apology, which many editors do not feel was sincere or sufficient. Ground Zero (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: You mean the long comment by user:. Xsobev which responds to User:ArticCynda's post which said:

Discriminating people based on factors they did not choose, and cannot influence or change, such as country of birth, eye/hair/skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, is completely unacceptable.

which to me sounds reasonable?

(Just to let you know I did not get your ping, not sure why) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The long comment yes, but look at the quotes from edits to article space. AC might have seen reasonable in the discussion, but that was just smoke screens. –LPfi (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It is my personal observation that indef-blocks do not work, YMMV. All a block does is force some determined contributors underground (socking). There are thousands of socks running around wikimedia projects creating havoc, actually there is now a whole sock-industry at WMF, with way too many contributors spending too much time fighting the noble fight instead of concentrating on building content.

I realize this posting may get me into trouble with the "authorities", and that many believe I have ulterior motives. It has even been suggested that I am a sock-master myself. I have been known to advocate for a sock-master on anther wmf-project, for which I have just been threatened with a block. The point I was trying to make, unsuccessfully, was that not all socks are (completely) bad guys. Some actually do good things for the community, and concentrating on ridding us of all socks is counterproductive, both because of its futility and because socks actually do some goods things for us. IMIO.

I know the issue of socking is a difficult problem and I have no ready-made solution, but I think it is time to call a spade a spade and stop hiding our head in the sand, and concentrate instead on figuring out a solution to what we should do about prolific contributors that do not fit into the mould for one reason or another.

Sorry for this walloftext and I hope I have not been too much of a distraction to all the good work being done on this wiki building up content, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are not prohibited on this site. What's prohibited is block-evasion. And even then, if a banned user shuts up about their previous identity and provides only unimpeachably good content, no action will be taken against them. You seem to be suggesting that we should allow people with neo-Nazi attitudes and distorted contributions to match to run rampant on this site. Would that be a good way to make Wikivoyage a friendly site for the majority of the world's population? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on this page

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

• Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

• Ikan Kekek should delete Khasavyurt, Buynaksk and Kaspiysk.
• AC also created Gunib, and Tindi, so they should bevdeleted as well.

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

• Dagestan
• Gimri
• Derbent
• Makhachkala
• Izberbash
• Kizlyar
• Magas
• Špindlerův Mlýn

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:
• @ThunderingTyphoons!:
• @Ikan Kekek:
• @Ibaman:
• @AndreCarrotflower:
• @LivelyRatification:

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

• @Vaticidalprophet:
• @Andree.sk:
• @Nurg: (20 April 2021)
• @82.3.185.12: - “AC has agreed to the terms of both the w:WP:SO and the w:Template:2nd chance, so I think five months from now would be fair.”

Undecided

• @Nurg:
• @DaGizza:
• @The dog2:

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)

@Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero, Vaticidalprophet, ThunderingTyphoons!, Ground Zero, Nurg: So, I think there's a consensus for 9 months with only User:Ground Zero and me disagreeing here. Considering how there's 3 who says 9 months and 2 who disagree and the rest all undecided, (I can see discussion fatigue here) Indefinite is a step further and nine months is reversible, unlike indefinite. SHB2000 (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt 9 months ban is rational. AC most likely did anonymous edits here and there, it's not like "faking" the IP address is a big problem for a tech-savvy person. I would say something like 3-6 months ban + 1-2 years without auto-patrolling would translate better to "you'll have to re-earn the trust, we mean it". Taking a 9 months absolute break from something you apparently love/like to do almost sounds like fairytale; a person with intent to follow the community rules from now on could manage 3 months easily, as a first step to show remorse... but I'm too late to the discussion, sorry for stirring up the calmed waters :-) -- andree.sk(talk) 20:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem, all views welcome, especially now when everyone else has given up :-) (joking - can't you see the smile?!) It would be 9 months of not "thumbing his nose" by editing obvious AC articles, or signing posts as AC, or making disruptive comments in the Pub, etc etc. I completely agree that there'd be a lengthy period before auto-patrol rights were restored. But 3 months is at least 3 months shorter than the "absolute minimum" required for some users to support the idea at all, so I don't think that will fly.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Now even User:Ikan Kekek has given up. SHB2000 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Like I wrote, it was a joke. I'm not trying to single anyone out.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I just like peace. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

So, do we have a consensus? SHB2000 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not changing my vote, but I think it is really important that we make a decision. If the slight majority wants nine months, then let's proceed on that basis. And then when it all goes pear-shaped, SHB2000 and I will get to say "we told you so". So that will be worth it. Ground Zero (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you here. But since everyone (except us) are either undecided or nine months, we'll just do nine for the time being. SHB2000 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic about the results, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 :( SHB2000 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

With Andree's and TT's comments we got another ball in the air. Andree's reasoning on 3–6 months sounds reasonable and TT's about just not obvious AC edits troubling, especially combined with the above "if he ever admits having evaded the ban". I am very much against forcing somebody to lie, so I think our choices are more or less an absolute ban of realistic length (6 months?), a longer ban with an explicit "no obvious AC edits" (a year?), an indef "but welcome under a new identity after enough time" or a real indef ban (which probably works as badly as until now). Sorry for not allowing peace to settle. –LPfi (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Officially, the 9/6/whatever-month ban will be an absolute ban on editing, and that's what I'd like to impart to him. But we all know that realistically there's no way for us to know for sure if AC edits during this period or not, which is why in practice it would be a ban on anything identifiably ArticCynda. I think we would pick up on anything large scale, such as the creation of new articles, but then again we might not (you don't know what you don't know), and we very likely wouldn't notice some drive-by copyediting here and there. I'll be the first to admit my plan has a bunch of holes in it, but then so do all the other plans, and at least this one aims for an end-date solution instead of an infinite stalemate.

How would an "indef but welcome under a new identity after enough time"-plan work? If it's a new identity, by definition you can't know for sure who's behind the account, so what's stopping him junking the AC identity and starting a new account tomorrow? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an IP he's been using for a while is blocked for 3 months. But if he wants to build a travel guide, he should go to Wikitravel; where he'll have a fresh start. SHB2000 (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

IP addresses can be changed in seconds or hidden.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, forgot that. SHB2000 (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So, AC has now requested on their talk page about the decision. With this, I see we're getting nowhere so I'm going to do this a 3rd time but now with only 8 months (1 has passed)

Later discussion

This discussion has died out a lot from it being very active to only around 7 people getting involved. It's seemed like we're getting nowhere close and I think AC's getting impatient now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're trying to poll again, but I'm now back in the "permaban and delete everything camp" as a result of his latest remarks at User talk:87.74.197.32. He's proud of block-evading and claims it's for the good, and I don't think that continuing to thumb his nose during his supposed voluntary forbearance on block-evading to edit destination articles constitutes any kind of real respect for any period of being blocked. But forget about getting people in general to change their opinions and refer to the discussion above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was being too impatient. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I was in the middle on the unblock idea but narrowly came down on the unblock side. I have just read the Wikipedia:Standard offer - that approach seems quite fair. So "Let the ban be for nine months and then we'll decide" is the section of the 2nd Round Table that is more-or-less my view now. I'm not wedded to the period being 9 months, but I don't oppose it, nor would I oppose 6 months. Nurg (talk)

He hasn't understood what we mean by a block, but I think that might not be important. If we are ready to take his apology and he does not do what made us block him, that is what matters in the end. I might not be too eager to cooperate with him still for a long time, but that is probably unimportant. What might be a problem is that I'd not want him to be too active on non-destination pages. With those reservations it seems I agree with Nurg. –LPfi (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

He's proud of block evading. That's unusual SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've changed my vote to maintain block and delete per this: "If it is the ban evasion that bothers you, there is only one way to stop it for once and for all: lifting the ban that's causing it to happen. Without a ban, there would be no further need for ban evasion." I'm sorry for changing my mind again, but I can no longer support my own "standard offer" plan for someone who takes no responsibility for his own actions and holds the idea of consensus in contempt.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This is concerning. If he thinks he can force his way on us, then we will have big problems if we invite him back. I suppose this is why I don't want him to present himself as an established and respected member of the community, as he did with the French teacher. There is of course always the option of reblocking, but he might prefer just continuing his way, blocked or not. I suppose there needs to be some humbleness before we can lift the ban. –LPfi (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Now me and User:Ground Zero can have our "we told you so" moments. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If you like. I am very much not in the mood of lifting the ban now. I am ready to reconsider after 6–9 months, and let's hope I have reason to be optimistic at that point. Keeping a discussion like the one at the IP's talk page going will certainly make the odds worse. –LPfi (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to ask you but since I wasn't doing too much with the French teacher at the beginning (or following WV politics) but what did AC do with the French teacher? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcomed them in a way any established editor could have. As a block evading IP editor he had no right whatsoever to act on behalf of the community. I don't want somebody with that little respect for the community – or that little sensitivity – to represent us. –LPfi (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's unacceptable. And the french teacher said that she wanted to say to other french teachers that wikis are good. And this isn't a great example at all. Anyway, I'm going to go now, as it's 2343h here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverting the edit would have seemed very odd. I suppose the teacher did not note what IP editor did the welcome, so no harm externally this time. –LPfi (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A block is a block. This little game of words and patience is getting tiresome. Revert, block, ignore, shall we. Ibaman (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We've spent way too much time on this guy and given him too many chances. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

What about leaving this now, and if somebody (read: an established user who is familiar with this discussion) after 9–12 months thinks returning to it is worthwhile, we can do so, and at that point allow him to edit his user page if we want his comments (arguing elsewhere or before that is block evasion). I suppose he understands that going on like before (or arguing like now) won't get him welcomed. I will not object to reverting his contributions when that can be done without losing work by others, but I won't engage in that myself. –LPfi (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. In light of your point about his user talk page, what would you suggest should be done about User talk:87.74.197.32?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we leave him alone. I don't think the discussion is fruitful, but I don't like the idea of forcing respected users to stop talking. We don't do that on other matters either. If the page bothers you, just remove it from your watchlist and ignore it on latest changes. Regardless, don't write anything there – if you disagree, speak up here. –LPfi (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not bothering me, and I have removed it from my watchlist because I've nothing further to add. It was just a question, because you said "arguing elsewhere or before that is block evasion".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Continuing the arguing over there is block evasion, but it does little harm but by us not ignoring it, which is our shame. Better to have one venue where he can reach those listening than him popping up on random pages trying to argue. I'd advice him to keep quiet for 6–12 months, and then perhaps post one message asking to be readmitted to his talk page, where he could tell how he feels about this, again not arguing. –LPfi (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with 9 months. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

But we still have more people for indef and delete rather than 9 months. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Again. A block is a block. This dude earned the block, is proud of it, and might be block evading RIGHT NOW. It´s unpleasant and has gone for too long. Nuke the whole shabang every time he dares to sign AC, that's the consensus. Ibaman (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Finally, I get someone who agrees and is thinking exactly what I'm thinking. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

So it's 7 in favour of a permanent block, and 4 for a nine-month block. Consensus is not a vote, but this to me looks like the majority are in favour of maintaining a permanent block, and deleting contributions that are identifiable as being those of AC. I am prepared to delete recent contributions and re-build articles for other wiki sources, if others agree Ground Zero (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC).

Yep, probably time. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

Seeing no further comment, the conclusion is a permanent ban, and we will remove AC's previous contributions. Thank you everyone who participated in this long and difficult discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So can I nuke his work now? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please. Ground Zero (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Started to do some. Tagged some pages for deletion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: - what about his work on his talk page? Do I just blank that? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 03:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we usually leave talk pages alone, unless people make offensive remarks there. Ground Zero (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted most of his edits to Dagestan and some other pages too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 04:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should revert stuff like this; the articles were added by that English class in France, and they need to be listed properly. Not doing so is cutting our nose off to spite our face.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll not undo his french contribs but revert all other edits. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

ArticCynda is continuing to add content to a draft of Murmansk Oblast at User talk:87.74.197.32, as if operating under a WP-style Standard offer. They should stop and I am happy to apply a block to that Talk page. In my opinion, if we allow them to edit one Talk page, it should be User talk:ArticCynda, which they currently cannot edit. What do people think - allow them to edit User talk:ArticCynda, or block ArticCynda from editing any Talk page? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

he gets satisfaction from editing in general SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do we have to do anything? He's userbanned, and can only edit that talk page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

there's nothing wrong with it anyway. moving this back into archives SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Trolling history vandal (Projects)/GRP

Discussion from the pub

Swept in from the pub

== Please see this thread ==

Your presence and participation is requested in this linked thread, especially if you're an admin, long-term user or user with many edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering that this user sometimes will send you private attack emails, there's no way of knowing unless someone steps up or he is community banned. (with an edit filter blocking his IP range). SHB2000 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on this page

If you don't know what I'm talking about, ask, or just look in the history of articles about former Soviet Georgia and especially relevant talk pages, but it's gone well beyond that to articles about Chicago and such. Are we going to have to require auto-confirmed users site-wide, or does anyone have another idea? If you do, give us a link to a discussion about it in the relevant place that's free of the prying eyes of vandals, and thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ikan, may have brought this up before and not sure if you remember but when I got the harassment email from User:Fordaona, with a link (wikipedias'cks.co). I've been closely following this up and reading their stupid discussions. On that site, User:Anarchus is considered a meme there and any memes with that mentions that username is almost certainly sockpuppets of Fordaona. What I would propose if for Anarchus to globally rename their username and add an edit filter that prevents anyone from typing the username. SHB2000 (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: – If we're going to need autoconfirmed users site wide, then how are new users even going to start editing? But it's best to check all Illinois IP's. Btw, if we do autoconfirmed sitewite, then we'll lose one of our significant contributors (User:82.3.185.12) SHB2000 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Whereupon something else needs to be done, but hell if anyone else but us seems to care. Do we need to promote this thread on Requests for comment? I would expect admins, at least, to monitor this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"I would expect admins, at least, to monitor this page." - But no, only a non admin is monitoring this page. SHB2000 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Which is good and appreciated. I posted a link in the pub. Let's hold off on posting anything at Requests for comment, as I really prefer to give this thread only as much visibility as necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree 130% here. SHB2000 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Re. the above comment. Or at least notice it on Special:RecentChanges SHB2000 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm following the discussion, but have no idea what to do about this. Ground Zero (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Completely understood. We need a technical person to start a thread in the appropriate place and link it. If that doesn't happen, I guess we have to contact stewards, but the frustrating thing would be if they aren't stopping this guy with technical means on other Wikis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, the vandalised text being inserted everywhere is almost identical. We can't filter based on individual words because there will be too many false positives but we could try filtering out longer phrases which are specific to the vandalism being added. Gizza ^(roam) 03:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Best to discuss such specifics away from prying eyes. Would you like to cut and paste that suggestion to the appropriate place? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Greetings -- it's this guy. He's been harassing, stalking, spamming, and threatening us for more than fifteen years, on dozens of different WMF projects. For a technical solution you may want to get in touch with the admins at Wikibooks and Wikisource, who have implemented some pretty robust filters. He uses open proxies unless the IPs geolocate to Chicago which is where he is. I won't say any more in public -- drop me a line if you need to know more. Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

To be honest and apologies for the language (it's a bit censored), screw these guys and get lost forever. But is it possible to rename your account and ban the name forever on wikivoyage for non auto confirmed users? SHB2000 (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ground Zero:, I've been attacked by this guy via email a few times now. Almost all of them contain the text referring to me as "motherfucker" or "suckpuppet" if not both. All his emails provide a link to the website called "wikipedias'cks.com". Haven't been bothered to report his last few emails (infact, I only published one of his emails here) as well as him creating harassment accounts. SHB2000 (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm listening, only so that you know. I don't know why you think most admins are not. I could take a look at the filters, but I don't know the guy and I think we have some admins with more cross-wiki abuse filter experience (I have touched the filters just here). –LPfi (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Because there's 48, and there's only 10 of them that I'm aware of that actively participate and this has been proven with a VfA (unexpectedly) that no one noticed other than Ikan. SHB2000 (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: - I don't know why he hates me and Antandrus a lot (and possibly Ikan Kekek as well) SHB2000 (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Some people are just really venomous. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about assuming people who aren't commenting aren't reading. It's just a frustrating situation. I have no real technical knowledge. Could someone with decent technical knowledge contact admins at Wikibooks and Wikisource and let us know that they're doing that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies again as well. SHB2000 (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek:, I think it's because I called him a sockpuppet when he tried to vandalise your talk page twice under different IPs. SHB2000 (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to note that I'm also following this, but have nothing to suggest except to find out what Wikibooks have done and copy them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

My suggestions:

Least preferable

• Block his IP range - similar to the telstra guy. Unlike BJW, we have no significant contributors from Chicago
• Edit filter - As mentioned above
• Do what Wikibooks have done with him, similar to what TT suggested
• PP all Illinois related talk pages
• Both of these (PP and WB)

Most preferable

SHB2000 (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of the activity in question is not on articles or talk pages related to Illinois. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

And yet another harassment email from his sockpuppets, this time via User:Antruthant but with 10 or so links to "wikipedias'cks.co" and without the words "motherfucker" or "suckpuppet". If you want to see the email, let me know on my talk page and I'll forward it to you. SHB2000 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I got one too. I didn't read it. Keep in mind that he doesn't have your email address. Just ignore and delete. Ground Zero (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: - Erm, have I made a mistake in publishing my email address on meta? SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was not a good idea. Any user can contact you by going to your user page and tapping "Email this user". But in doing so, they don't get your email address, unless you reply to the email from your email app. You can avoid this by replying to them on their talk page or emailing them from Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, got 23 harassment emails not from Wikivoyage due to that email address I provided on meta. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 12:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I kept this one because I couldn't resist reading this users nonsense. SHB2000 (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no training in psychology, but this sort of stuff does make me wonder if there are mental health issues involved. Ground Zero (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Very likely, someone who wants to do this must have a reason to do this, but this has gone too extreme. Almost certainly has mental health issues. SHB2000 (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Can confirm. Since he has been sending me threats for more than 15 years, I made an effort to find out who he is. Six arrests, ten felony counts, not guilty by reason insanity. It's hard to keep people like that away from the internet unfortunately, at least in the US. Antandrus (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That's really sad. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Hi, I've been asked on my en.wikibooks to comment on this page with regards to GRP. For one, yes, he's a serial irritant on that site (with an interest on chess-based pages), and has harassed me personally quite a few times (by talk page and email). That being said, we've managed to successfully stop GRP from vandalising for the most part, to the extent that they are using extremely creative methods to get around.

The way we did it was using a powerful abuse filter (filter 65) that works on a "shoot on sight" method (see its blocking history), and in my opinion has managed to single-handily stop GRP on en.wikibooks. The drawback is that there are some false-positives (which I can reduce further), which you'll need to keep a watch on, and update the filter from time to time. I can share the filter with an en.wikivoyage admin if needed, however, you'll have to modify it because one of the reasons it works very well is its highly targeted nature, and what GRP does on Wikibooks and Wikivoyage need not be the same.

Please do let me know if you need any further help, and please ping me because I don't watch this page. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: - Thanks mate, but if needed, I'll try and contact you on both pages and not just one like what I did earlier. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Admins might also want to take a look at filter 22. –LPfi (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: I looked at that filter - there is one thing you're missing - the ability to block. You need a phab ticket for that. The en.wikisource filter as Antandrus mentioned was derived from this wiki, with that blocking ability added. Leaderboard (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, LPfi. I read the edits there but have no comment right now except to thank you, and also many thanks to Leaderboard for sharing expertise from Wikibooks, and to any other friends of this site who are helping out behind the scenes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Leaderboard, and if necessary, I'll contact you on your talk page as what I did yesterday. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 22:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Could User:DannyS712 have left due to this guy. In his emails one of them said "*****, JUST ASK DANNYS712, ANTANDRUS AND OTHERS, WHO **** WITH US, WE JUSTLY DESTROY EMAILS, YOU ARE NEXT WIKI*****!@" meanwhile User:Antandrus had decided to stay and revert the trolling history vandal's work? SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 23:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the reason not to let him know your email address: he has a lot of dirty tricks. A lot of them. (I cannot improve on Ikan's "Some people are just really venomous" above.) He has driven some people from Wikimedia projects, but I will not be one of them. Remember -- he is not sane. In his world, things have happened that actually have not. This guy spent almost three years in jail for his ceaseless harassment, including of public figures. Anyway -- set up the filters. He tends to focus on weakly-defended wikis. I'm pretty good at recognizing his rubbish and remove it from enwiki, where I am an admin, and some others, where I am not. Antandrus (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I added my email on meta for good faith users, wanting to contact me privately, not knowing that a bad-faith user would abuse it. Btw, has he done anything on Wikispecies yet? Because what's their response to him. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You're probably ok if he doesn't have the email headers (i.e. don't respond to him). Have not seen him on Wikispecies, but -- who knows. We catch a lot of his rubbish but certainly not all of it. Antandrus (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sending his emails to spam. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think the worst scenario is that we prohibit account creations unless autoconfirmed on another Wikimedia Project or Wikitravel. Of course, we'll have some User:CatDog1234539 situations by gaining trust from Wikivoyage and then vandalising Wikinews and Wikipedia. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see doing that. If we prohibit account creation, we might as well pack up and go home. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

True. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

In the last e-mails I got from this user, he complained about him and his friend having been outed (on another project). I hope we all can do our best not to publicly tell more than what needs to be publicly known or discussed, and also otherwise keep to a respectful tone. What has to be done has to be done, but it is best done without drama. I think we all share some amount of frustration, but even that is mostly better shared as tacit understanding. –LPfi (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

4 of his 40 emails we're like that to me. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 21:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's this guy but I keep receiving notifications that someone's trying to enter my account. As one of the four targeted voyagers here on Wikivoyage, hope this doesn't go too far. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: You might want to consider getting global 2FA at metawiki. --Ferien (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ferien: What's that? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: 2FA = 2 Factor Authentication. So when you login to Wikivoyage (or any Wikipedia project) you have to enter a code on your phone to login. --Ferien (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

and you probably want to disable email from new users, and do it globally. He will go onto other projects to try. --Ferien (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll consider 2FA. But I'm not going to disable email from new users as I'll not let the minority few ruin it for the majority of good faith new users. (if 82.3.185.12 creates an account) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that's been my approach too. I just dump his messages in the "kook mail" bin. Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Although I do check his email addresses and so far I have 8 ish email addresses. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand but generally brand new users don't need to email you. They can always ask you to email them if it's very important. --Ferien (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• yeah, it sure was him on Iraq right now. Ibaman (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not him. While the title was in lowercase, he doesn't provide well and clear structured paragraphs. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

But that was him on Samarra SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

as for the last edit on my talk page, yes, it sure was him, positively. Ibaman (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

He's not capable of expressing himself coherently. If you see a group of sentences with correct grammar and a logical flow from thought to thought, he's copied it from somewhere. For example today's edit on the talk page for Museums he copied from the talk archives at Wikipedia. Antandrus (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just in case you all don't know about this, he's this guy on the WMFOffice global block list (#0021321). They periodically go through and sweep up his socks. If you ever have any questions about his global ban you can contact Trust and Safety directly (ca at wikimedia.org). Antandrus (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

After doing research, I think I know what's the guy's full name, based on the facts that Antandrus has given. Email me but I won't be responding until mid May as I'll be away. By the way, will Chicago Police deal with this as well? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd support having Wikibooks-style edit filters, and *possibly* autoconfirmed page protection of Chicago articles. Anything else sounds way too false-positive. As an aside, if you're getting 40 emails, note that you can globally turn off the ability to receive emails from non-autoconfirmed users. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet:, he got my email through meta (I openly published it) so not all of them were through wikivoyage. And I'm with the suggestion of autoconfirmed for all Illinois (not just Chicago) and articles like funny place names and articles that a brand new user has no reason to post (and again, to User:82.3.185.12, I suggest creating an account) related articles. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That's why I said 'globally'. He emailed me through Wikivoyage, so I configured Wikivoyage emails to AC-only, and then he emailed me again through Meta, so I configured that to be the case globally. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I've done the same. In nine years, I've never received an email from a brand new user that couldn't have been written on one of my talk pages. Mostly, it's touts who seem to think that emailing me with the reason why their company's special and should be exempt from the rules, is a better idea than addressing the comments put to them on-wiki.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Was it this guy who vandalised my talk page here, on enwiki and wikibooks while I was away, not using a single source of technology? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason why my talk page gets vandalised every day now? What have I done? This is also a problem on enwiki but luckily User:Antandrus reverts his edits. By the way, User:ThunderingTyphoons!, the protection log here has expired. Ever since Antandrus got admin status, I've continually been harassed but why? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism is like Fight Club - the less said about it in public, the better.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, this page is still unprotected. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It is now restricted to auto-confirmed users. Ground Zero (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with TT's FC comment. Let me know if I missed any pages you want protected. Antandrus (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Antandrus: You may want to apply revision-deletion on those junk at both places. Leaderboard (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Looks like I woke up to "cleanup in aisle six" this morning. Antandrus (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Probably a tad out of context for the ban nom but I'd like to clarify something. 2 days back, I blocked one of their socks in the capacity of a GS. The thing I'd like to ask is that is there any local policy on what kind of stuff should be revdel-ed other than defamatory content/non-public info? --Minorax (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Minorax: Wikivoyage:Deny_recognition is the policy which allows for revdels to be used against LTAs. The policy is still somewhat controversial in this community, so is best used with caution, but I can't see anyone seriously disagreeing with applying it to this individual's edits.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Minorax: - revdel is never a good idea with this guy. the more you delete it, the more he'll attack us. But can tell that the account shb2000 is a sockpupper of antandrus is one of his harassment accounts. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Defamatory stuff and insults probably should be revdeled, though I don't normally revdel anything, myself. I don't follow your argument because if we take it to its logical conclusion, we should never revert any of this guy's edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

But based on some of his edit summaries, can we blacklist the wikipedias'cks.co website? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 04:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but if so, make sure to edit your last post to make it possible to easily edit this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Where is the link? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 05:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

What link? You mean the spam blacklist? I never remember and always do a search, then find it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Not the link, the domain name. The site is often referenced not technically as a link, because of the filters, so if you don't want him to mention it, you shouldn't either. It is not an issue on talk pages, where new users don't have to be able to edit your comments, but it is in places like the pub, which technically aren't talk pages. –LPfi (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I've censored it to wikipedias'cks.co SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

He will likey just find another way to link to that website. (Even trying to explain what I wanted to say caught the filter!) Ferien (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever way you write it that won't be caught by the filter won't be caught when he uses that spelling. And if it is added to the filter when he uses it, the page will suddenly start to disallow some innocent edits. Better not to mention it at all (we have noted your request already, and if we didn't know the site we wouldn't be able to deduce the correct spelling from a scrambled one). But this page is pretty safe, as new users don't have to be able to write here. If they have something to say that should be posted here, they can say it elsewhere and ask somebody else to bring it here. –LPfi (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

GRP has a few autoconfirmed accounts. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering that this guy attacks me cross-wiki, I'm going to consider applying for global rollback, is there anything that I need to do or change, and please don't feel shy. I appreciate all sorts of feedback, and this is the way I can change and become a better editor. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you active on a bunch of different wikis, in a capacity where rollback would be useful? I think that's the most usual criterion for granting it. (I'm thinking about asking for it too, but just haven't gotten around to it.)

Because this guy has a severe mental illness, "DENY" doesn't work as well as it does with other trolls, but over time he does gradually move on. Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm active here, on enwiki and the nauruan wikipedia. But you should seriously apply for Global Rollback. 16 years? That's too much attacks. I doubt Stewys'd oppose the nomination SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think being attacked is not a good reason for being granted rollback privileges. The tools are for fighting vandalism, not for self-defence, and being attacked you might not have as good judgement as when doing rollbacks out of altruism. –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Antandrus is attacked globally on a lot of WMF projects. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have understood that, but it is not a reason for granting global rollback privileges. Him actually engaging in vandalism fighting more generally on several projects is. –LPfi (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I occasionally revert crosswiki vandalism and don't have global rollback either. Leaderboard (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I'm pretty sure that User:SHB2000, you coward is him who attacked me on az.wikipedia. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Cyrillic Letter LTA

I've noticed an increase with this vandal who uses Cyrillic letters and constantly vandalises pages, with some of his user and talk pages tagged for speedy deletion. From the time I've been here (early 2020 - on enwiki), no good faith user has ever had Cyrillic characters in their username and there's no need for Cyrillic letters on the english wikivoyage. Are we going to have to blacklist all Cyrillic characters here, and automatically block users with Cyrillic letters? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"Are we going to have to blacklist all Cyrillic characters here, and automatically block users with Cyrillic letters? " - Heт. Cyrillic is used in hundreds of destination and phrasebook articles, because it's an official script of several Eurasian countries.

Just let us know which accounts are being used, and we'll block them. There might be a possibility of using filters if the vandal has favourite words of letter combinations.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would hope that we would see contributors to Russian and other Cyrillic language wikis come to contribute here from time to time. That would strengthen our coverage of countries that use Cyrllic. If they arrive and find themselves automatically blocked and blacklisted, though, they won't cone back. Ground Zero (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I might be assuming that he doesn't use a combo, but it looks like he does. Although in his probable most recent sock account. It was blocked by a global sysop. However, this one was slightly different. But does anyone here know any Cyrillic languages here? (except ThunderingTyphoons, as I know you know Russian) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I only know the barest minimum of Russian (so little, that I don't advertise the fact I know any on my userpage to avoid getting any hopes up). We have several native/fluent Russian speakers in this community - Atsirlin, Wolverène, DenisYurkin, Soshial... - but I'm not sure whether we need them for anything in relation to this convo.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing examples of these cryllic vandals, so we know our suspects? Please use diffs.--JTZegers (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at User talk:Vaticidalprophet SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I support keeping the block on 85.206.100.254 indefinately, not just for 6 months, because not only is he imitating other users, but he's clearly vandalizing User talk:Vaticidalprophet, and the best thing to do is prevent him from editing on Wikivoyage AT ALL COSTS. Also, the only Russian I know is swear words that I shouldn't say. I've looked up the IP address, and it seems that they are from somewhere near Russia (Latvia to be specific), so he might be the imposter (cue the Among Us jokes)and trolling us all.--JTZegers (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Could w:User talk:JoeMungus be 85. But as far as I can tell, anyone with among us jokes aren't here to build a guide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 21:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not me. I'm a different blocked user. And of course I'm here to build a guide.--JTZegers (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

We should not indefinitely block an IP address, because they can get reassigned, in some cases pretty frequently. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

85.206.100.254 is an open proxy and that was w:WP:LTA/GRP - the guy who was harassing us a lot a month or so ago. I haven't seen the guy who uses Cyrillic a lot around here but the most recent was probably w:WP:LTA/Wikinger. He imitates other vandals and spouts gibberish in multiple languages including Russian (he's based in Poland). Also banned by the WMF. (Sometimes it is useful to think of all vandals as the same vandal, so it doesn't really matter exactly who does what.) For obvious reasons I don't want to say too much about how I can tell, in a public place. There are a couple of other crosswiki vandals who imitate each other too.

I do not suggest disallowing Cyrillic; it would have too much collateral damage, and the troublemaker would just do something else. Antandrus (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@JTZegers: no I was saying about 85 etc. I know you're here to build a travel guide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We could blacklist this combo "Шумских Эмма" as it's a common username pattern. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

And also 85 is Ljupco using an open proxy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to block a proxy at all & firmly opposed to a long-term block. It is not likely to be effective since the vandal can just find another proxy.

On the other hand, it is likely to cause problems for users who have legitimate uses for a proxy. I've lived in China & Saudi Arabia, & in both cases I could have written things here that might have got me jailed or deported. I chose not to, but others might need a proxy for the anonymity it provides. Pashley (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Typically open proxies are blocked, and editors who need to edit through a proxy can request an IP block exemption for that purpose. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Open proxies are indeffed on sight as a global matter, yes. I think I missed the talkpage vandalism, if it was recent. Concur with the general sense of "we absolutely shouldn't blanket-ban Cyrillic"; how active has this LTA been? SHB and JTZegers, you're both good people, but you can both be a bit too enthusiastic about antivandalism sometimes, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable supporting a full edit filter system without some other eyes on it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

All of Шумских Эмма's socks are currently locked; she seems to have become bored the last couple days. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

For all suspects, I support:

• An indefinite block for vandalism
• Account creation blocked
• User can't edit own talk page

--JTZegers (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@JTZegers: - when an account is locked, they can't login in the first place. So all of these measures will be useless. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What kind of lock is that? Normally you just block them from editing (and perhaps from sending mail). Normally you should allow them to edit their discussion page, unless it is a spammer who will use that page for continued spamming, or the talk page has otherwise been misused. If you don't allow appealing a lock, you should be very sure the suspect is the intended target. –LPfi (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

All of Шумских Эмма's socks are globally locked. So there's no point in doing all these extra measures. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll shut up now. I’m just trying to help, but I believe you got that covered now. JTZegers (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Exactly. That's his pattern. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 [https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/User_talk:ArticCynda#Unblock_request request to be unblocked[ was rejected just three months ago. Ground Zero (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Revert all. Hard block. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hard-blocked the /64 SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree entirely. When I see genuinely good edits by Brendan, I keep them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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 87.74.196.200 was an AC sock as per the VFD discussion. I was going to ask whether 178.255.156.181 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)

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)

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 178.255.156.181.

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)

If I'm not mistaken, here are the three valley articles they have created:

• Achen Valley
• Lower Inn Valley
• Paznaun Valley

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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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):

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

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

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)

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)

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)

There is no sensible existing hierarchy. Tyrol didn't have subregions before 178.255.156.181 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)

See (Tyrol), Galtür and Kappl were created by 178.255.156.181 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you, LPfi! Looks much better now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Tyrol

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)

24.54.179.76

I just blocked this IP as a possible sockpuppet of ArticCynda. This IP created Finkenberg, an article that was previously deleted as it was created by an AC sock. They also used the edit summary "created missing article", which is typical of AC. The only catch is that this IP geolocates to Arizona, not Bristol, which is where most of AC's socks geolocate to. Anyone else think this is also an AC sock? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

nowadays it's easy to fake a location using VPN, I guess. IMHO it's more than likely to be a sock of his. Revert, block, ignore, as always, IMHO again. Ibaman (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Good to have some confirmation on this :-). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

AC (continued)

We all know that AC is now one of this site's biggest pest. They're banned, and even though AC rambles on some bullshit about 90% of the time, I want to make this firm and encode the procedures in tackling this one-of-a-kind user. If there is a consensus to enact upon this, I'll make a note on their talk page which ultimately makes it clear what the consequences are. Also, no more of that WV:DENY, please – pretending like AC isn't a problem to this wiki is just as bad as letting his edits stay.

I spent some time coming to a conclusion on what the ultimate wording should be, though I'm not married to it:
General

1. ArticCynda may not edit the English Wikivoyage at any time, as long as their user ban is in effect, using an account or an IP.
2. Using any account or IP to bypass this ban is strictly prohibited.
3. Using another user to proxy edits on behalf of ArticCynda is also not permitted. Users who do so, unless contradicted by policy, may be subject to a ban. Users who do so may be subject to a ban, unless another policy supersedes the abuse.
4. An unblock request must be made using their main account through Meta-Wiki.

Blocks and protections

5. Any IP suspected to be an ArticCynda sock may be blocked for 36 months with no notice. Talk page access, however, will not be revoked in the rare case that the sock has been misidentified. The IP abused by ArticCynda is then to be added onto User:SHB2000/IPs.
6. Any account suspected to be an ArticCynda sock should ideally be checked on m:SRCU. However, if the sock is blatantly obvious, then it may be blocked without the need of a CU.
7. Any edits made while block-evading may be instantly reverted with new articles created speedily deleted.
8. In the case of edit warring with an AC sock, a page may be semi-protected, even though the admin may be involved in the edit war.
9. Edits made by ArticCynda while block-evading may be revision deleted at the discretion of the admin.

Harassment and deceitful behaviour

10. Harassment includes: calling reverts "vandalism", ranting about a lack of free speech and analogizing Wikivoyage admins to Stalin and Hitler [added per Ikan's cmt below], meticulously looking through a user's edit history to disrupt a discussion, and anything else defined as such by the Universal Code of Conduct and the Terms of use.
11. Deceitful behaviour includes: deliberately trying misleading other users and anything as defined asDeceitful behaviour includes deliberately trying to mislead users and anything else defined as such by the Universal Code of Conduct and the Terms of use.
12. The above does not have to happen on the English Wikivoyage. Such could include accusing Wikivoyage administrators of vandalism on Meta-Wiki, per se, but with the sole intention of disrupting that discussion.

Basically, this is a step up from what they're currently subject to, even though in practice, little will change from what we already do. However, this makes it clear and those who want to know my ultimate intention with AC will probably know why I'm even proposing this in the first place (those who don't are free to email me). Pinging everyone who participated in their original user ban nomination: @Ikan Kekek, Pashley, Hobbitschuster, Mx. Granger, Ypsilon, WhatamIdoing, Xsobev, SelfieCity, ThunderingTyphoons!, DaGizza, Ground Zero, Ibaman, LPfi, The dog2:

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would need to discuss this individual again. He is already permabanned. Can we please not have this discussion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

May I email you why I'm starting this? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I would suggest rephrasing 3., whose second sentence is not very clear. I'd suggest deleting "unless contradicted by policy," but if there's some reason such a statement is needed, it has to be clearer, such as in the phrasing "Users who do so may be subject to a ban, unless another policy supersedes the abuse," but in that phrasing, you can clearly see why a disclaimer is problematic. For 5., I'd swap out "three months" for "six months." In 10., I'd edit this phrase - Harassment includes: calling reverts as "vandalism" - by deleting "as." You can also add "ranting about a lack of free speech and analogizing Wikivoyage admins to Stalin and Hitler." if you like. In 11., "Deceitful behaviour includes: deliberately trying misleading other users and anything as defined as such" should be changed to "Deceitful behaviour includes deliberately trying to mislead users and anything else defined as such..." In 12, I suggest getting rid of the last (3rd) sentence as redundant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits, Ikan Kekek! I've struck through and amended the above proposal to include your adjustments. I think I forgot the finish 12, but now that I think about it, it does seem redundant. Thank you for understanding the situation and why we have to go through this all again. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you want to re-read the result of #3. It now begins "Users who do so" without saying what "so" is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As minor points, #11 says "deliberately" and #12 says "with the sole intention of disrupting", which both suggest that admins are mind-readers. Perhaps those words are not necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know whether this initiative will help for the problem itself. I am uneasy about the rationale being secret. I understand that may have to be so, but without knowing it in detail I cannot really say anything on whether this or specific measures in it are proportionate and likely to be beneficial. I would like more than two persons to have full access to the reasoning. Six trusted users would be more in line with what should be needed.

Anyway, if we enact it, we need to be careful not to cause collateral damage. Talk page access is important, as is letting a misidentified user understand what this is about and how to go protest the block. The current wording on that is confused.

The wording on proxy editing should be very carefully considered. We should not allow meatsocks, but strictly forbidding any acting as reaction to what AC says elsewhere brings too much association with groups whose resigned members are to be treated as non-existent. We don't want an atmosphere where (one gets the impression that) using one's own best judgement can get one banned.

I don't understand the third section. Why do we need to define those terms? I cannot see any reference to them.

–LPfi (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you concerned about? We currently operate on "if it looks like a duck, it is a duck." I hope you're not suggesting some other mode of behavior in the case of an extremely offensive banned user who uses one sock after another. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting not blocking, but I think possibly innocent users should get a very clear message that they aren't the target, and clear working advice on how to get unblocked. I also don't want good-faith users to be banned (or afraid of being banned) because they disagree on this statement or the interpretation of it, or are unaware of it. –LPfi (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you want me to send you an email for why I'm starting this? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure. I really wouldn't want to get engaged too much, but there seem to be few others participating in this discussion. –LPfi (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm silently following all of this. I'd like to receive this email. Ibaman (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

LPfi, in the very unlikely event that a different user tries to edit the types of articles this guy edits and then calls admins Hitler and Stalin and as a result gets permabanned with access to their user talk page cut off, I am not sympathetic and would just say that they can go pound sand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, acts that in themselves would lead to a block are unproblematic. Somebody summoning Stalin and Hitler can be written off as a vandalism account and doesn't need this declaration. The problem is with edits that are unproblematic in themselves but resemble this user's. I might trust you, but any policy-like document must be worded carefully not to be misinterpreted by some. –LPfi (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer all reasoning to be made public. Emailing individuals on request, when we're expected to debate this proposal on Wikivoyage, is silly.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really, to be fair. Again, the most I can publicly disclose is that this has something to do with other x-wiki issues AC has been stirring. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, so e-mail me too. –LPfi (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There were some problems with the proposal, which I noted by e-mail. It seems the discussion has stalled. Is the proposal (in this form) being withdrawn, such as if other options are seen as better or sufficient? –LPfi (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)