Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive

This page is for archiving content from Wikivoyage:User ban nominations.

This page is split up into several subpages, categorised by year.

User:Conner Logistics

[edit source]

This user had a promotional username, and made promotional edits to their talk page. In addition, this user has attempted to use this site to advertise or promote a business or service.

Texas (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary to ban them for a single infraction. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in addition to what Ikan mentioned, we don't normally do username blocks on this project – either their conduct is bad enough that they'll be blocked for other issues, or it's acceptable. //shb (t | c | m) 07:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Iwuala

[edit source]

This user, as evidenced by their comments on the travellers' pub, has indicated that they are not here to build a travel guide. They have repeatedly decided to pick fights with project regulars (including myself, Ikan Kekek and Wauteurz) and has provided no acknowledgment that they will even have the basic courtesy to notify us for future events.

To be clear, I am only suggesting we ban Lucy upon recent developments such as picking fights and not what I may have previously suggested. It's primarily now where Lucy gives practically zero indication of intending to be a constructive contributor – and given how they are arguing, I see very little that will be lost if Lucy is banned, but much to be gained.

//shb (t | c | m) 23:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SHB2000 I also believe in equity and fair hearing. Your quoting that I provide no acknowledgement to notify the community in future event is not accepted by me as my response here says otherwise. Now, I do not see my asking you to clarify what I did that will earn me an outright ban as picking a fight. And I believe that your calling for my ban for exonerating myself from an action I'm not responsible for will be unfair. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy, if you would cool off, I would continue to oppose a userban. I'd really much rather that we continue to be able to have discussions, but I have yet to see where you committed to inform us about a future editing project you are involved with as a trainer or in some capacity or know about. We were never informed about two of the editing projects involving numerous edits to Wikivoyage that were organized from outside and figured out what was happening only after a whole bunch of bad edits and article creations were made. If you are now committing to let us know about any future such projects in advance when you know about them, let's get past your anger today and agree to close this userban nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's unfortunate that the discussion at the pub has turned out this way, but Lucy continues to be unwilling to address the fundamental problem. The projects Lucy has organized, without the knowledge of the Wikivoyage community, have had a major negative impact on regular contributors, who've been forced to clear up mess after mess. Following our continued (but ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to have a conversation to fix the problem, I don't think we can assume good faith of Lucy anymore. It's overall a shame for Wikivoyage that this effort has turned out this way, as an expedition to improve our African coverage would be terrific, but the expedition that's just taken place made our coverage worse, not better. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And to address the nomination's reason itself: the problems above could have been alleviated with course-correction from Lucy, who chose to pick fights instead, as the nominator has mentioned. But, I'd argue that's intertwined with how the expedition was carried out, and shows a pattern of behavior by Lucy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, rather vehemently. Bans are for vandals, spammers & people more interested in axe-grinding than in building a travel guide. Lucy does appear to have some axes, but she's engaged in discussions & appears to be interested in work the site would find constructive. Pashley (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I agree with you, especially after receiving clarifications from Lucy. See my user talk page if nothing else she has posted suffices. Let's close this thread and let cooler heads prevail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That message is a good step forward. I would, however, at least want to see a formal clarification from Lucy that she will notify the community, which she has still yet to do. //shb (t | c | m) 00:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is formal enough. Look at continuing discussion on my user talk page. I don't think it makes sense to try to require Lucy to jump through more hoops. Let's chalk this up to a misunderstanding and drop it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing – I guess we can close this as not done then. //shb (t | c | m) 01:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Ikan Kekek that we should treat this as a misunderstanding. I don't think this is what we should use User Bans for. Ground Zero (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not done, after Lucy's response on Ikan's talk page. //shb (t | c | m) 02:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2001:8004::/32

[edit source]

For the sake of transparency and the lack of a better place to note this down: this range is globally blocked, but I've locally unblocked 2001:8004::/32 (talk · contribs) on the English Wikivoyage. I know there's a lot of abuse that comes from this range, but it also makes up for almost all of Telstra/Optus' mobile IPs (two out of the three largest Australian telco providers). //shb (t | c | m) 05:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear, this is not a user ban nomination, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. I just don't know where else to put this. //shb (t | c | m) 09:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]