Wikivoyage:User ban nominations

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.

MON

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support The above comments convince me that we have to respond firmly to this abuse. Ground Zero (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)