Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive 2023-2026

Kochi Taxi Service
See here. Here to promote a service on Wikivoyage. Roovinn (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * For sure. Roovinn (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Aniketrana8321
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)

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)


 * ✅ – blocked accordingly for 2 weeks. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Ibrahim.Itavera
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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 21:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 05:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I posted to the pub. Post to Rfc if you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Cool :-). I'll do RfC in just a sec. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * @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)
 * + their talk page, which is just a page of misconstrued fluff at this point. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Welp, I called the shots a bit too early. I'm tempted to direct them to 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 (?) could direct them – hopefully we might see a change of heart but I'm not holding high hopes. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I nominate User:El Grafo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot about them (sorry, El Grafo). I too nominate El Grafo. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked for that, didn't I? OK, I'll give it a shot later ... El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, not worth the effort. El Grafo (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support: It doesn't look like the behaviour is likely to change. The dog2 (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have consensus for an indef ban. Any final comments before I do so? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 20:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ✅ SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User ban nomination
I invite your participation in a new user ban nomination. If you have any comments about the nomination, please make them there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)