User bans are put into practical effect by using a MediaWiki software feature to block edits to any page (except pages in that banned user's user talk page) by the banned user.

Add nominations for user blocks to the list below, but please do so only after reviewing Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits. After a nomination has been made, the nominator is responsible for ensuring that appropriate notice is given on the allegedly delinquent user's talk page of the nomination made here.

In general the preferred way of handling problem users is through the use of soft security. In the case of automated spam attacks the spam blacklist can also be a valuable tool for stopping unwanted edits.

For an archive of older nominations, see Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive. Nominations are automatically closed and archived after 14 days of inactivity.

New account that thinks they can tell project regulars what does and what doesn't constitute as consensus at Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia#c-Chealer-20250606171200-Piotrus-20230926082000 in a manner that constitutes as POV pushing. I suggest an indef block per WV:ONESTRIKE as they are already blocked on enwiki, frwiki and frwiktionary, but Ikan Kekek and I are way too involved with that discussion. //shb (t | c | m) 06:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Support as nominator. //shb (t | c | m) 06:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Oppose for now. Let's see whether or for how long they continue with this behavior before we subject them to increasing blocks, let alone a ban. If they continue for a week or two, we can revisit this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Maybe, but they're already blocked on three other projects for this exact kind of behaviour – I don't see why a fourth would be any different. But I think LPfi's solution is likely the way forward, where that is their last warning and any future instances of poor behaviour result in an indef. //shb (t | c | m) 10:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• [edit conflict] Comment: Starting one's carrier at a site by discussing policy is not the way to show good faith. They have few edits in article-space, and even those include format changes (listing → running text, "rectifying" time from 12-hr to 24-hr format) – but thanks for the update. I would advice them to leave policy, guidelines and format tinkering alone and just contribute information, and I do support some kind of formal warning to that effect, but I don't think there is a need for a ban yet. Either they comply or then a ban could be the next step. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I did not start my "carrier" here discussing policy. I started by wasting hours trying to access Vancouver’s tourist information centre, since:

  1. Our directions were not so clear, and led me to be redirected from the wrong employee to another wrong employee. I was then told by another wrong employee that it was on the second floor of the building but that I was too late since the office closed at 17:00, and it was precisely that time after more than an hour of wondering.
  2. The hours were outdated (or wrong), the actual hours being much more limited.
  3. The centre did not really exist anymore (which, based on everything I witnessed, has probably been the case for years).

  This led me to fix a section of Vancouver, and I used the opportunity to further improve it slightly. It’s only after noticing others degrading the resulting section that I directed attention to a template and "policies".

  Besides, the vast majority of my contributions to Wikimedia projects are volunteer, and the vast majority of Wikivoyage contributors are volunteers. I would "advice" you let volunteers decide how they contribute and direct your own efforts to productive work, whether that is fixing or completing user documents or improving policy, depending on what you most enjoy tinkering with. My contributions to Wikivoyage are far from a career for me; I am an environmentalist and workaholic who rarely travels, and I am precisely using the opportunity of a rare career pause to visit friends. I would already be proud of my Wikivoyage contributions if I could stick to fixing major mistakes I spot when consulting Wikivoyage.

  Also note that good faith should be assumed. Contributors are expected to act in good faith, not to show good faith (whether or not doing that is even possible). Chealer (talk), 9 June 2025

• Close, but not yet. They were blocked on enwiki 10 years ago and frwiki a year ago, so they may have matured. They did start with some useful contributions on Vancouver, then went headlong into comments on policy. I hope that this is taken as a final warning (before increasing blocks) and we get some more useful travel contributions (but just follow policy at the moment). AlasdairW (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. Bans are intended to deal with problematic behavior. Wikimedia projects are based on collaboration. If you disagree with someone, the constructive way to contribute is to express and explain your disagreement. Coercive measures (bans in particular) are not intended nor supposed to be used for censoring purposes.

The policy you invoke is about vandalism and irrelevant to this nomination (or any other nomination). Blocks are meant for aggressive behavior or violations, nor just discussions. Bans are last resort measures, which are not justified with mere ad hominem attacks.

For your information, my account is far older than yours. But neither the age or permissions of our accounts should matter to this debate. Your proposal should be justified with actions carried by the accounts you wish to be restrained. Even rectifying or disagreeing with contributors which have older accounts or more permissions is not considered as proper justification for blocks. Chealer (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about in regard to ages of accounts? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I also don't get how permissions have anything to do with it. //shb (t | c | m) 00:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please read. All I wrote is that neither the age nor the permissions of accounts should matter. Chealer (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

SHB2000 visibly implied that my account was less valuable or important because he considered it "new". My account's age is irrelevant to this proposal (and even if age mattered, it would make no sense for his "new account" to tell a senior account how to behave). Chealer (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Missed the point completely. Nobody said your account was less valuable and I didn't say you were unimportant. If you'd actually read my comment properly, I was clear that you're not a project regular and the fact that you can barge into a wiki that you aren't a local community member of and tell regulars how to interpret policy is what constitutes as disruptive behaviour. What you say about me or any specific editor is irrelevant because this entire thread is about your behaviour. //shb (t | c | m) 06:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You don't seem to get it. I am a "local community member" just as much as you are. Some of us are more concerned about quality than quantity; a higher local edit count doesn't make you more of a member than others. Some of us are more interested in language than travelling and may direct more of their efforts to other projects; that doesn't mean they aren't community members. Some of us have a life outside of Wikimedia, and are still members despite lower edit counts.

All contributors are allowed to discuss the same; in fact, we value discussion. Chealer (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This comment of yours just gives me validation that a ban needs to happen sooner than later. Your behaviour very much falls under "other malicious editing" and the fact that you even brought up account age just goes to show how unfamiliar you are with this project's customs yet you think you can tell project regulars, who know the ins and outs of this wiki's policies, to say how we interpret this wiki's policies. //shb (t | c | m) 00:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Accusing others of "malicious editing" or any misbehavior without providing evidence constitutes a personal attack, which goes against policy.

You brought up account age yourself in the very first sentence of this section, which you created less than 20 hours ago. Frivolous accusations and weaponization of processes/policy can also constitute personal attacks and lead to imposition of sanctions on your account. Chealer (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

"New account" does not always imply age, it can also imply experience. //shb (t | c | m) 07:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Accounts have no experience; contributors do. Even if you had written "New contributor", your comment would still have been discriminatory; any given contributor should not be censored any more than you are, regardless of its account’s age, permissions, or its ethnicity, gender, age, experience, etc. Chealer (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some things never change, eh. //shb (t | c | m) 07:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you're referring to your attempts to use ad hominem attacks, they could actually be stopped. This is my final warning to stop these. I advise you to take it seriously, since―whether you like it or not―on that topic, we do have an actual policy, which can be enforced, should reason not be enough to change. Chealer (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, it's the fact that you've taken zero accountability for your actions and doing the same behaviour that got you blocked on enwiki. I fail to see how "some things never change" can be interpreted as an ad hominem attack; if anything the reasoning from your frwiktionary block also applies here ("Contributions perturbatrices ; comportements non collaboratifs ; croisade personnelle. N’est pas là pour contribuer sereinement, mais pour se confronter à chaque personne qui ose croiser son chemin", or translated into English, "Disruptive contributions; non-collaborative behaviour; personal attacks. Not here to contribute serenely, but to confront every person who dares to cross their path."). If multiple wikis are having an issue with your behaviour, the problem does not lie with us but with you.

Also ironically, the policy you quote can be used just as much against you as everything else in this discussion. //shb (t | c | m) 09:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What a huge amount of time-wasting! I suggest for all of us to stop engaging in any discussion with Chealer, and I definitely support an immediate block for an initial period of 3 days, which will likely eventually turn into an indefinite block. Who has time for all this useless chatter? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• blocked indefinitely for threatening "sanctions" = WV:NOTHERE. Ibaman (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks, Ibaman. :) //shb (t | c | m) 22:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Yeah, good call. While I opposed a permanent ban at first, I feel a sense of relief. Nastiest troll we've dealt with in a long time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I was thinking it was heavy-handed, but I think we know where this would end up. Chealer would not become a productive contributor. Making threats so early in their time here is a sure sign of WV:NOTHERE. Ground Zero (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Normally I'd not support an indef ban at first, but they have been doing this on various wikis for 10 years now and almost delves into cross-wiki abuse territory. It's very likely that were Chealer to ever become blocked on Commons and enwiktionary, they'd be globally locked. //shb (t | c | m) 01:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  It was right to ban. Although I had initially said not yet, I was proved wrong by the contributions that they then made on this page. Their claim to have contributed for so long also showed that the ban on en WP was not some childhood misadventure. AlasdairW (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Yes. A newbie may question policy like Chealer did at first, but they should be at least somewhat keen-eared towards regulars. A newcomer fighting the community is unacceptable – and referring to long experience counters the newbie good-faith defence. Either WV:NOTHERE or a person who cannot direct their energy into productive contributions. –LPfi (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

User has been here since late March, and is pretty much confined only to Stockholm Archipelago Trail and its sub-articles. Their comments on that article's talk page strongly hint at them not being here to build a travel guide:

• Showing little respect and consideration to Wikivoyage's style, as expressed by @Ikan in this comment. Furthermore, Salgo seems to have a fixed vision of what the articles in question should be. Any good-faith additions that do not fit that pre-formed mould get blown out of proportions as if they were made to shift the primary focus of the article (Diff 1), or get discredited as being wrong or bad advices (Diff 2, Diff 3).
• The user has been pointed in correct directions regarding the above, but seemingly disregards feedback and instead tries to cement themself as a figure on authority as they manage a Facebook group (Diff 1) [...] and no one has inquired about [that]. Their experiences based on completing all sections of the trail I have no such issue with.
  • I guess the Facebook group stuff could also be seen as promotion of themself/their business, but I'm not convinced of that at all. I think it's purely brought up to cement themself as a figure of indisputable authority.
• Treats Wikivoyage as a battleground. Most of their responses on talk pages are unnecessary and could be avoided by adding one or two lines in the article. Instead, they go as far as to compare individual editors' contributions as equal to the Scots Wiki debacle. (Diff 2).
  • See also this thread where they seemingly try to spin a rewrite of information they have added themself as being entirely wrong. The passage is lacking information which wasn't there to begin with, and the issue could be resolved without a talk thread by just adding the missing information to the article. This reads to me as wilfully seeking conflict.
• The user floods talk pages with information that should just be added into the article directly, seemingly only doing so to seek confrontation (Diff 4, Diff 5), which also serves to illustrate that they have little intent in working collaboratively. Other times they have assumed the reader to be completely moronic, just so they can drive home a point (Diff 5). They close off that edit by showing that they obsess over one user's edits by bringing up something I said in a different thread, seemingly just to spit on it again. Similar to the comparison to an edit of mine in a completely different thread (Diff 6).

I don't know what a suitable response to this behaviour would entail, so let's just simply assume banishment from this project. If there's a better action to take, then there's this discussion for that. I mostly just wanted to post this nomination so I can give closure to my involvement in that set of articles, because interacting with Salgo is nothing but infuriating to me at this point. I have added some of their diffs, but there are other comments of theirs that exhibit the same problems. Please, read the relevant talk page yourself and draw your own conclusions.
― Wauteurz (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support as nominator. ― Wauteurz (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Support indef, appealable in 6–12 months, on the basis of CIR (it's a Wikipedia essay, but the core concepts apply here as well). I do not believe temp blocks will help in this instance and the number of times Salgo has crossed the line (especially the scowiki comparison) is way too many for a temp ban, and the benefit with an indef block is Salgo is the one who needs to prove they've changed their behaviour instead of a block automatically expiring. //shb (t | c | m) 09:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  For additional context, Salgo was also blocked on svwiki before (w:sv:Special:Redirect/logid/9056047) for "Nätmobbning" (which if Google is to go by, it translates to cyberbullying), more recently on Wikidata in 2024 (d:Special:Redirect/logid/669327445) – both of which are on par with the scowiki comparison. Once is forgivable, twice pushes the boundaries and thrice is where it becomes indefesibly unacceptable. //shb (t | c | m) 09:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Given their exit statement, I am now entirely convinced that an indef is the only path going forward. No indication of why Wauteurz even had to warn them in the first place, and the Hamlet quote at the end is the cherry on the top. //shb (t | c | m) 10:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  The exit statement really enforces my suspicions of them not listening to any of the feedback and justifications they've been given by me and others. Hell, [...] and perhaps then you can explain why anyone would need to rent a car or boat to walk the trail only re-enforces that Salgo has not read anything I have written since I've explained and defended those additions multiple times in different wordings. He also once again is trying to cement themself as an authority. I don't question their first-hand experience, but I take issue with how Salgo uses it to only further their own narrative and dismiss additions of others that don't fit their own vision.

  The agenda bullshit is just insulting. I have explained my actions clearly and I don't think that those have been problematic at all when it comes to our style and policies. I refuse to defend myself any further to them. The last chunk of the reply is just dramatised crap that I refuse to even consider addressing.
  ― Wauteurz (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Support. Of course. I've seen this movie over and over again, with new protagonists checking in every year, sometimes every month, here on Wikivoyage. Ibaman (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
• This happened very quickly. I didn't even get a chance to wake up and express an opinion before they were indefinitely blocked. I would have suggested that their block be dialed back to no more than 2 weeks so that we can deliberate, but this looks like a snowball decision. It's still irregular, though, isn't it? And the problems with the articles and non-articles they added still have to be dealt with, but now without any possibility of their helping. They did finally delete a bunch of irregular links to Google and Commons, showing that they were not completely impervious to remarks about their flouting of Wikivoyage guidelines, although they've behaved very poorly in general, as documented in links above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Their talk page messages to Wauteurz IMO warrants an indef block. They have proved that they cannot act in a civil and collegial manner. //shb (t | c | m) 21:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I'm not really arguing that they shouldn't have been blocked indefinitely, just that the first step should have been to block them for the duration of the user ban nomination's consideration. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  This did go by quickly, I'm definitely with you on that, Ikan. I highly doubt that Salgo would have been helpful at all in resolving anything. Judging by what he's since added to his WikiProject about our project, Salgo really seems to live in a world where self-reflection is a luxury afforded by the lucky few. I have explained to him multiple times why having those additions is valuable on our project, but he didn't seem to understand it, possibly because he didn't want to understand. There's only so much cooperation you can expect from people living in their own bubble.
  ― Wauteurz (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

it must be mentioned, my thinking was similar to yours, IK, until I checked in this user's talk page how they reacted to the ban nomination, and thought again. Ibaman (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I haven't read the block threads on other projects, but I note that the cyberbullying block was 2hr, which I think shows that the incident was minor.

The user has severe problems with communication and seems not to understand how to cooperate, but I think those problems are genuine for them, not a sign of bad faith. I understand those who feel insulted by their comments, but I also think that they might be just signs of frustration, not anything personal. w:Wikipedia:Competence is required, which SHB linked above, using an acronym, is indeed relevant, but the question is how understanding we can be towards a person who tries to contribute useful content, but just doesn't have the skill to cooperate on the expected level.

Being interested only in a few articles, or a specific region, is generally no problem. In this case it makes it easier for those who just don't want to cope with walls of text and the other problems to just ignore them and the articles that they have created.

Our guideline on how to handle this kind of conflict (Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Last resorts) says that "attacks on or harassment of other editors" should be met with escalating blocks. I see no reason to indefinitely block the user less than 5 hr after the nomination. Some might find that this is a snowball case, but I don't think it is. The only block that I can see on sv-wp, where they have been quite active and shown the same problems, is the one 2-hr block.

–LPfi (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the mention of their Facebook group as an attempt to gain authority. Rather, they said that nobody in that group have inquired about boats, kayaks etc. – clearly a means to try to tell us that the perceived problem is minor. LPfi (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You don't think they showed bad faith? I have to wonder what someone would have to say for you to see bad faith. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: I'd assume you would also agree with me that going around on multiple projects, removing mentions of Wikivoyage because of their indef block on multiple projects is quite blatantly in bad faith while also against local policy (Wauteurz and I are currently dealing with it). Relevant discussions are at d:User talk:Salgo60#Q131318799, d:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Q131318799 and w:en:Talk:Stockholm Archipelago Trail. Haven't gotten to dewiki and dawiki yet. //shb (t | c | m) 23:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but I also saw them engaging in bad faith here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The question is how much we are willing to take to accommodate a productive user who cannot act otherwise. But removing mentions of Wikivoyage as revenge for a block nomination is indeed unacceptable – I cannot believe they couldn't have abstained from that. Can you provide some diffs (as judgements on this page should preferably be based on own observations rather than trust in fellow editors' assessments). –LPfi (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Sure – d:Special:Diff/2360725564, d:Special:Diff/2361168537, w:en:Special:Diff/1295660765, w:en:Special:Diff/1295697519, w:de:Special:Diff/256994763, w:da:Special:Diff/12052922 and c:Special:Diff/1043913217. //shb (t | c | m) 09:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Following one of the linked edits, in an edit summary, they say "Wikivoyage Its not good enough it doesnt focus on the people doing the trail". That doesn't seem like revenge editing, but a possibly honest assessment, and as they were blocked and thus cannot improve the Wikivoyage article, the reaction is understandable. Although it certainly isn't the wiki way, it does not prove bad faith. I still think they should be allowed to return according to our guideline, with this block changed to three days.

I don't see there being any major hazard in them given another chance: if the use their editing rights for revenge, then they should be blocked again quickly and possibly banned. I hope they would instead help by explaining the problems they see in the article at the moment. Their contribution has indeed been valuable, and it would be a pity if the article would stay misleading because we misunderstood something and don't let them explain where we got it wrong.

–LPfi (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not against Salgo being given a second chance, granted that they return with a better understanding of Wikivoyage's style and purpose and position themself better for cooperation, instead of throwing insults about intent and cognitive abilities around. Their unwillingness to understand others' intent and Salgo's authority-based argumentation is a brick wall when it comes to cooperative efforts. In my experience, Salgo argues only to be proven entirely right, and compromises seem out of the question. I don't doubt that Salgo means well for the trail and could (with correct guidance) produce quality content, but their approach to discussions and cooperative efforts needs change before I'd be willing to support a return.
― Wauteurz (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sadly, I don't think there is going to be a big change (they have been on sv-wp since a long time), but I hope that they at least could refrain from direct attacks and insults. –LPfi (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose To me this person looks like one of the best new contributors we have had in years. They have created something like 20 articles on a topic that is clearly of interest to travellers, mostly well-written & properly formatted. Yes, they have got some things wrong & made some dumb comments, but as I see it nowhere near enough for a ban. Pashley (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Question: have you ever supported a user ban or a permanent block of a productive user based on their refusal to act collaboratively or other types of nasty behavior (including racism or antisemitism)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seemingly not, unfortunately, I'm afraid (I've only gone back as far as 2013; I'm sure 5 is enough to prove both your and my point). //shb (t | c | m) 07:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That was my recollection, too, and I think it's relevant in considering their viewpoint on any one user ban nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah :/. Especially also because bans operate on a consensus model rather than votes so the argument that they created 20 articles is irrelevant (totally ignoring for a moment that those 20 articles are riddled with problems). //shb (t | c | m) 07:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

They are riddled with problems, but I don't think that argument is irrelevant; it's just that being productive while acting nasty to people who want to work with you is not OK on a wiki. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

To be fair to Pashley, they did research ArticCynda's "obviously racist comments", and wrote, "Please either apologise & refrain from doing such things again or expect to be blocked." (8 Aug 2018 comment). Like Pashley, I thought we could work with this user and get them to come around to our way of doing things. I was wrong, and based on this experience and others, I now have little tolerance for trying to keep this type of contributor involved. Ground Zero (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Support we have had examples in the past of contributors "being productive while acting nasty to people", and we have not succeeded in getting them to change. I love new content, but people who insist on contributing only according to their own methods turn Wikivoyage toxic. They do not make it better. We have to protect our community. Ground Zero (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I think Salgo60 is different from those others, and I don't think they turn WV toxic as long as they keep to the articles they created themself. Making those articles confirm to WV style requires a few of us to manage communication with them well enough, but I think it is doable.

  The question is whether we want to accommodate them, by not taking offence from their way of posting overly long talk page messages and often not listening. If just knowing that a user is given such extra leeway is bothersome to people, then we should prioritise our existing community. Accommodating a user like Salgo60 is possible only if the community at large can accept any (implicit) special measures required.

  Anyway, I don't like the idea of banning a user because of the vibes people get. There is nothing in our guidelines that justifies a ban, only our predictions do. Even with a good crystal ball, using it for a ban makes it easy for trolls to tell about the cabal.

  –LPfi (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply