See here. Here to promote a service on Wikivoyage. Roovinn (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's touting and out of scope for a user page. I deleted it. Perhaps they won't return and a ban is then unneeded. If they return, then let's see whether they continue touting. –LPfi (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Roovinn (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, for the record, they just did. Ibaman (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Special:Contributions/Aniketrana8321

On the 14th of March, this user was blocked for touting. They came back again and engaged in the same behaviour. Roovinn (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I've seen that many users from India come to this site to promote themselves/their businesses. Roovinn (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done – blocked accordingly for 2 weeks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Ibrahim.Itavera, user contributions. This individual obviously will never be willing to respect or attempt to convince a consensus of anything. I propose an indefinite block, so that we no longer waste time arguing with a ranter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This user believes they have had a terrible experience with Wikivoyage. I think that they and Wikivoyage should agree to disagree, and go their separate ways. I don't see any opportunity to repair this relationship, unless the Wikivoyage community were willing to give this user carte blanche to edit as they wish, and the Wikivoyage community never does that. Ground Zero (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support They are clearly WV:NOTHERE as they don't want to respect consensus and other contributors, show them the door. I'm also okay with a 6-month block, need it be. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural question: They are currently blocked for 3 days. Should we lengthen the block to last as long as needed for this user ban nomination to end? Would that be 2 weeks? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd leave that block alone and let them continue editing after their block ends until this is resolved. I have adjusted the block so they can comment on this page, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he starts making unilateral changes like he used to again, I think the next block in the escalating series of blocks will be for 2 weeks. The 3-day block I gave him was as per the escalating series of blocks policy. The dog2 (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're against a user ban: Why do you want to continue giving them scope to rant and rave about how this is a dictatorship and the consensus against them is due to bigotry, etc., etc., etc.? You read their remarks on their user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's best to let them have a meltdown and not get too riddled by it. When there is consensus for a ban (I hope that arises soon – should we post to pub + RfC?), it should hopefully come to an end. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to the pub. Post to Rfc if you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a user ban. I'm just stating that the next in the escalating series of blocks is 2 weeks. This time I only blocked him for 3 days as per the standard escalating series of blocks. So I don't see the need to extend the 3-day block, because if he does the disruptive edits again, the next block is 2 weeks, which will give us enough time to complete this discussion. The dog2 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I assume you are right that they are beyond hope, I think keeping to procedures is of greater benefit than the nuisance of having to revert a few edits and do a new block a few times. Let them make the decision on a ban easy for us. If they change their ways, either a ban is unnecessary or we can discuss what to do at that point (and I won't have any empathy with them if they try to find out just how far they can go). –LPfi (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :-). I'll do RfC in just a sec. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's not uncommon for enthusiastic new users joining a wiki to have a bit of a rough start when their edits clash with how things are typically done on that wiki. It's usually a combination of them not taking the time to familiarize themselves with the way the wiki ticks and the regulars reverting them not communicating in a newbie-friendly manner. That can absolutely be resolved and turned around, but there are two things that need to happen: 1. Someone from the community needs to reach out, de-escalate, explain what's going on and give advice on how to move on. Maybe this happened a bit late, maybe the words weren't quite right, but clearly there was an attempt. 2. The newbie needs to relax, eat a piece of humble pie, try to understand why things escalated, and show intention to work along to resolve the issues.

I think this probably could have been handled better from the community side in one way or another, but ultimately that wouldn't have made any difference. Ibrahim.Itavera may have the best intentions, but I think it would be better for everyone if they spent their energy elsewhere - maybe start a travel blog where they can write what and how they like. --El Grafo (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to try your hand at once again explaining consensus to them, and learn the hard way how you'll be responded to. If you think this could have been handled better, read Talk:Europe#Istanbul and the revision history of Europe (and several other articles where they edit warred) and see whether you still think so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek just FTR: when I write "could have been handled better" that doesn't necessarily mean it would have been worth the effort (actually quite the opposite, if you follow that sentence to the end). --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ their talk page, which is just a page of misconstrued fluff at this point. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The discussion at Talk:Europe#Istanbul was started early on and they did not miss that discussion. If they can "relax, eat a piece of humble pie, try to understand why things escalated, and show intention to work along to resolve the issues", then fine (they have 3+14 days for that). I think those who participated from our side did their part at least as well as can be expected. Ibrahim.Itavera just thought they can have it their way. –LPfi (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim has now been inactive for 3 days now. I think it's quite safe to say they've left us but I don't want to call the shots too early. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's no longer inactive. Does anyone else want to try to explain to him that we don't use words like "paradise" on this site? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, I called the shots a bit too early. I'm tempted to direct them to Wikivoyage:Words to avoid, but I feel they have had enough of me (plus you and Mx Granger) and would just respond with the same fluff that they have. Maybe it would help if an uninvolved user (@LPfi, Ground Zero:?) could direct them – hopefully we might see a change of heart but I'm not holding high hopes. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate User:El Grafo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot about them (sorry, El Grafo). I too nominate El Grafo. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for that, didn't I? OK, I'll give it a shot later ... El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, not worth the effort. El Grafo (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Looking at it more closely, I really don't see a path to constructive feedback here, and they violate several provisions of WV:NOTHERE It's pretty difficult to justify this behaviour and I don't think their behaviour would change even if they were given another off-ramp. Cyali (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: we really don't need that level of agressive fluff and disrespect. I've applied the 2nd block, in good time, I think. Ibaman (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I was going to give them some constructive feedback, but reading some of their comments, I just gave up. I cannot imagine anything that they'd listen to. If they aren't a troll, they need some trusted friend to interfere. –LPfi (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They would need something along the lines of the mentoring program they have (or at least had some years ago) over at de.wikipedia. I guess there's nobody here who has the time and energy for that level of support – I certainly don't. El Grafo (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It doesn't look like the behaviour is likely to change. The dog2 (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like we have consensus for an indef ban. Any final comments before I do so? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this one's talk page is full of juicy textbook examples of contempt and defiance of policy and consensus, too many to count. Maybe they should be reviewed and quoted on appropriate policy articles, say, WV:NOTHERE and WV:Tone and many others. The volume and intensity of aggression displayed are memorable. Ibaman (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 107.9.140.157 (talk · contribs)

This user has created several copyvios, hoaxes (for road routes that do not exist), and deliberately misleading information to several articles, demonstrating no sign of change either. I don't see much hope when they have refused to respond to any of the talk page messages directed at them. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if this requires a formal user ban, rather than just blocking at sight like Brendan. Meanwhile, block for a month. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm subconsciously treating this like an ANU thread, even though this isn't such. I'll change the block later today if there are no other objections. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, they've just earned themselves a 2-week block. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 70.68.168.129 (talk · contribs)

This user is being disruptive and unwilling to listen with their use of AI in discussions. Can someone else look at their behavior since I've been directly involved? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the incivility on Special:Diff/4860194 and Special:Diff/4860189 are grounds for a ban, but it's best for an uninvolved admin to impose it. Any takers? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've revdel the revisions. But it's a bit sloppy since I have to redact the text after someone replied to it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it looks good to me (tho the hammer would be nice). Cheers for that. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see Ibaman already blocked them for a month before. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now blocked them for three months for the talk page message. I haven't been involved lately, and I don't think my previous comments on their talk page can make me regarded as partial. –LPfi (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LPfi. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The most recent comment posted by the user at Talk:British Columbia is alone grounds for a ban. Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes indeed. However, blocking their IP address for more than a few months is probably useless, as addresses get reassigned. –LPfi (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. The ban should be a "permanent" ban in the sense that any reappearances of this editor should be blocked, but for no longer than three months for the reason you stated. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I didn't recall having blocked but went to check the history, which clearly shows that whoever is generating this AI interaction is not here to build a travel guide. Ibaman (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for the reasons above. Ground Zero (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - 70 seems to have been trolling from the outset. Gizza ^(roam) 23:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the discussion from Talk:Israel#Sensitive Issues since there's enough support for this discussion. Pinging all users involved to continue this here: @Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek, Ibaman, Mx. Granger:. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The dog2 has been wasting the community's time for years with political debates on talk pages and often inaccurate or unnecessary political claims in articles. When The dog2 works on accurate travel advice instead of political controversies, his contributions are typically good, so my hope is that this ban will allow him to focus on those contributions and avoid wasting the community's time and misinforming readers with the political stuff. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per discussion linked above, and a long list of instances of disregarding WV:Tone#Be concise and engaging in unnecessary encyclopaedism, too well-known to bother mention. Ibaman (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This has been going on too long. It shows a deep lack of respect for the commhnity, and is disruptive to our purpose of building a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since I didn't weigh in fully, I'll do so now. The dog2, I echo what Mx Granger said about your contributions elsewhere – however, when multiple users have asked you to step back on politics and sensitive issues, you need to do instead of doing the same thing over and over again. It's gone for several years now; how long is too long?

  During the duration of your topic ban, I suggest you take a through step back and learn to check what you're adding into mainspace. Take this time to learn why the community feels the way about your contributions to politics and respect sections; by the time your topic ban is over, you should have learned by then what to and what not to do.

  For everyone else – how long should the topic ban be? I would opt for 3 months given the length of their disruptive behaviour, which is enough time to self-reflect on their behaviour, but it can always be extended if the conditions of the ban are broken or if the disruption continues after the ban ended. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 01:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say 6 months. And I support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  6 months also works with me (or whatever everyone thinks is enough time for The dog2 to self-reflect). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 04:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also support 6 months. Ground Zero (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  6 months, no objection. Ibaman (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Although some of the additions by The dog2 are warranted, he clearly cannot judge when he should be sceptical toward his sources, how much his observations can be generalised, what conclusions can be drawn and when the warnings just aren't necessary. Please, The dog2, if you think something needs to be mentioned, tell it on the talk page instead and let other editors decide. –LPfi (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The dog2: Ground Zero (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Philippines#Questionable_addition. I'm not sure a ban is warranted; discussion & warnings should be enough. On the other hand, I have not followed things closely & will not raise an objection to the apparent consensus to ban. Pashley (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "discussion & warnings should be enough", but they haven't been. You can see on User talk:The dog2 how various editors have been cautioning them about adding false information and controversial opinions back to at least 2017, and have repeatedly asked them to desist from editing Respect and Politics section. The dog2 ignores the warnings and discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: how long should the ban nomination go for? I think 7 days is enough to form a clear consensus, but I'd be willing to hear to other suggestions. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits says: "If the proposed suspension of the user's editing privileges is supported by two administrators, and there is a broad consensus for the suspension, after 3 days the suspension will go into effect." This seems to me to be very fast. As The dog2 is an administrator, I would err on the side of a longer discussion period, like the 7 days you suggest, unless they make any edits to Respect or Politics while this discussion is underway. In that case, I would implement it immediately. Ground Zero (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, as he is aware of the discussion. If he thinks that a longer period or more voices are needed, I don't see any problem with that, but I doubt that would change anything. –LPfi (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do, of course, have until then to own up and things may turn around, but LPfi's suggestion is more than reasonable to me. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's a consensus that I am to be banned, there is nothing much else I can do but accept it. The dog2 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it'll be 7 days by the end of tomorrow, how shall we lay the ban conditions? I'd say:

• no edits to anything politics-related.
• no edits to "Respect" sections.
• no edits to anything that can be deemed sensitive.
• this ban only applies to mainspace; talk page discussions are still allowed.

Does this sound good with everyone? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sensitive and politics-related issues" is quite vague. I assume "anything sensible" refers to things that could go into Respect, not everything somebody could find sensible.

The wording is OK if we trust The dog2 not to try the limits and others not to mind grey-area edits. If somebody at some point feels that his edits are too far across the limit, then there needs to be further discussion. Perhaps we should trust him and the community, so that we don't need to start rule lawyering.

–LPfi (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works with me. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the wording, but I do not trust The dog2 not to try the limits. They have not shown respect for the community's opinions on this so far. If there is a clear violation of our intent here, The dog2 should be subject to escalating blocks. If there is a grey-area edit, it should be reverted with a reference to the topic ban. Ground Zero (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That or possibly the topic ban gets extended by 1 month for each violation. If it gets to a breaking point (where it gets extended to, say, end of 2025), possibly a block or desysop nom. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think GS's suggestion is fine. Still, we don't want to argue whether an edit is a step into the grey area. When considering a revert or block on this bases, one should ask oneself "should this be commonly understood to clearly be a step into the grey area or to clearly be a violation of the intent", not "do I think this is …" (somewhat analogous to the "knew or should have known" in Finnish law). –LPfi (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• yeah, for the record, as of yesterday there were edits about Hong Kong cinema, which IMHO are not "political" or "sensible" per se, but I would call them "encyclopaedic and unneeded", and qualifying as "testing the limits" and "not showing respect for the community's opinions". But maybe I'm being too grumpy here. Opinions? Ibaman (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think they're okay because they aren't political or sensitive and don't exactly waste the community's time the same way their edits to Israel or Russia have been. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the block is about unreliable information relating to politics and Respect. The encyclopaedic and unneeded stuff may be irritating, but I think we are going too far if we include that. Most of the marginally relevant stuff added has been about sensitivities and is thus covered. I don't see how we can disallow "unneeded additions" without rendering the edit rights unusable – as the premise is that there are problems with the user's judgement. –LPfi (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done – the topic ban has now been enacted until January 12, 2025, 23:54 (UTC). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the last week or so, there have been several influx of editors from Mongolia. According to User talk:Tenkyuu216#c-Tenkyuu216-20240805140700-SHB2000-20240805121200, it is known that this is due to a course on Wikipedia. We don't know who is organising this course on Wikipedia at the moment. There is a list of all users involved at User:A09/LTA/MON, which is being continually updated by myself, A09 and Ikan Kekek. Ibaman has also been involved with some deletions.

There are several issues with this group of contributors, with the main one being lack of communication. We hadn't gotten a single response back from this group until User talk:Tenkyuu216:

• obvious copyvios, including uploading files onto Wikimedia Commons with fake licenses.
• using AI to write articles in its entirety.
• creating articles that very clearly fail WV:WIAA.
• occasionally the use of disruptive socking (while this is not banned on enwikivoyage, the use of it for disruptive purposes is)

Several of these users are already blocked. Clcrystalbolor (talk · contribs) (including 202.126.91.173 (talk · contribs)) is indefinitely blocked from editing mainspace for creating AI-generated articles until they respond to their talk page. Indrabattsetseg (talk · contribs) is for, too, but sitewide – EPIC has also globally blocked the user until 09:21, September 5, 2024 for cross-wiki abuse. Chimgee13 (talk · contribs), Enhchimeg13 (talk · contribs) and Hunshuvu.16 (talk · contribs) are all blocked for being CU-confirmed socks of each other, while CU data shows that Oyungerelsh (talk · contribs) is also highly likely to be the same person.

However, many other users – including the organiser – is not blocked. Many of us are starting to lose patience with this group, so I propose that:

# The organiser of this group (when we find out who they are) is indefinitely banned from editing the English Wikivoyage. Appeals for a community unban may be made after 12 months.

1. Any user undertaking this course after the ban on the organiser is enacted is also indefinitely blocked. Appeals may be made at any time if they promise to edit constructively. A standard templated message is placed on all users' talk pages. This means that the users who have stopped making edits will not be blocked.
2. A "one strike and you're out" approach is adopted for users with a track record of copyvios and/or disruptive behaviour on other wikis, in particular, Wikimedia Commons.
3. Socks deemed likely or confirmed as determined using CU data (on m:SRCU) is indefinitely blocked unless they claim otherwise.

I'm aware that this is long, but it's time to recognize that this course has been a clear gross and net negative for the English Wikivoyage and that this will only continue to cause frustration and work for others to clean up if action isn't taken sooner than later. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banning the organiser and anybody undertaking the course after that sounds like a punishment rather than a way to solve the problem. If we find them, that would allow communication. Not listening and continuing with disruptive behaviour would be a cause for a block, not the behaviour of the past or just participating in the course. A quick block for copyvios and other disruption is sensible, but if "out" means banning, then I don't agree: I suppose a two-week block would be effective enough. For socks, I don't see it as necessary to block them, other than if we see reason to block the master account. I assume these socks are created as a means to get around blocks at WP, by people who just try to get their work (their assignments) done, without knowing our rules. –LPfi (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's exactly the problem – they're using Wikivoyage as a host space for their assignments with little-to-no regard for Wikivoyage policies and conventions. I don't see how a timed block will help if they're not answering their talk pages. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are a couple of issues with this. First, is there any evidence that the organizer - whom we don't know who they are - is actually editing here? If they're not, it would be pointless to ban them from doing so. Second, if we find out who's organizing this, we need to attempt to communicate with them. I think it's fine to block users who don't reply to user talk page messages, and it's fine to summarily delete all the articles that don't fulfill wiaa, use stolen images, or are written by using unedited AI (not sure how you're able to figure that out). We could adopt a "one strike and you're blocked for 3 days with a user talk message to that effect" and then block for increasing periods when users don't reply to user talk page messages. In terms of disruptive socks, I absolutely support banning them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for crediting me, it means a lot to me :) I support the group ban, but do agree with Ikan that banning the group leader is a bit pointless if they are not editing. I believe we could block the users per w:en:WP:DUCK concept if we were to accept one. To anyone who is willing to comment on matter of this ban nomination, I must point out the crosswiki activities as well: they have uploaded tens, if not nearly hundred of files that were all pretty much copyvios. A group block would not only show a strong response to further groups but it could also play as a precedence case that would easen group blocks in the future. The group showed no interest in communication when contacted, nor here nor on any other Wikimedia project and a failure to comply with multiple Wikivoyage policies even after warnings is a good base for a block. Best regards, --A09 (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the bit about the organiser as per consensus here. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The above comments convince me that we have to respond firmly to this abuse. Ground Zero (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The use of (obvious) AI worries me and could quickly get out of hand for a large group. Brycehughes (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and ready to wield the flamethrower for this good cause again, anytime. Ibaman (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as it unfortunately looks like they're going to continue creating these articles for as long as they are allowed to. Also it could be a good idea to create something like this: Template:TelstraMessage and put it on the talk pages of blocked editors, maybe that would get their attention. --Ypsilon (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think a standardised but custom template is needed for this group (far too tiresome to manually do each time). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree a custom template is almost needed as it is not only a single user, but what is " We believe you are an Australian user" meant to be? A long in-running joke on Wikivoyage? A09 (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's for edits by the "Telstra vandal" or "Brendan", who has been around for ten years or so. While not writing swearing words or deleting text, they are contributing text or random factoids that has little to do with travel, sometimes copied from other websites, obvious stuff etc. The person is extremely persistent and above all ignore attempts to contact them. They're using IPs from Australia, usually geolocated around Brisbane, usually by operator Telstra, and at some point they created tons of sock accounts too. Ypsilon (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. Thanks for the explanation. Will take a look into this case. Best regards, A09 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you're bored you can start typing "User talk:Brendan John Williams" in the search bar and pick some of the talk pages of the socks. It's really like counting the wagons of an endless freight train... --Ypsilon (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of their contributions are also racist or racist-adjacent, like this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also states the theory that the Bantu people may have originated in Nigeria. It also lists another theory. It seems to be a topic of interest to Africans and those who study Africa. The Nigerian origin assertion seems to be disputed, but what is the racism controversy? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if it's not racist-adjacent, it's at least irrelevant in a travel guide and somewhat oddly phrased. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that disputed information isn't good for articles. I had some teachers from Africa when I was in university who would mention Bantu people, Bantu languages, "Bantu noses", etc. very openly and casually, so your comment surprised me. I spent time trying to look up if there is controversy in other countries about this word or if genomics itself was controversial and couldn't find anything, so that's why I asked. I haven't come across this user (these users?), but the proposed actions against them seem reasonable. so I will add my Support to bring my comment back to the topic at hand. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sometimes react to what I perceive as the tone of an edit. Thanks for putting it in a clearer context and showing me that I was wrong to react to this edit as racist-adjacent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both the bans & the template suggestion.

But, while it certainly seems to be time to deploy the ban hammer, it does not seem necessary to smash too hard with it just yet. Mass bans of indefinite duration would be excessive now, though it may come to that later. For now, just a light tap of the hammer -- three days or a week -- to get their attention, plus the templated message. Pashley (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, except in the case of socking and repeat offenses from people who are determinedly ignoring their user talk pages. But in most cases, the usual increasing blocks can be tried. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: 14 days now, clear consensus to enact this. I will abstain from creating the standardised template message, however, until we get another one of these users who resume editing. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]