User talk:DerFussi

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:DerFussi/Archive 1 on 2018-06-27.

Welcome to Wikidata, DerFussi!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

Hi, I noticed some issues with several items that have corresponding Wikivoyage articles, where the linking data records between Wikidata and Wikivoyage keep getting removed (see for example Q147756, Q1025918 and Q132931). For all these items there are links from Wikipedia indicating that these articles (should) have Wikivoyage articles, but they seem to be getting deleted. Since you're active on both Wikivoyage and Wikidata, would you mind having a look at what's going on? I suspect a case of systematic page deletion vandalism on Wikivoyage. Thank you in advance.

It seems, the bots at Wikidata do not work properly. Normally the Wikivoyage entries at Wikidata should have been deleted automatically. But I do not know what process is responsible for that. Sorry. Maybe the Phabricator ist the right place to ask for the reason and whats going wrong. -- DerFussi 20:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter. I will have a look at the Phabricator in search for previous entries on this matter. This bot behaviour could lead to a lot of confusion, so it's indeed best to get it fixed. Meanwhile, it would be worth keeping an eye out for page deletion vandalism on Wikivoyage and restoring deleted content, then protecting affected articles.

ArticCynda, I'd hate to say this but it's because it's removed because you were the one block evading on the English Wikivoyage under an IP, and then Ikan and myself have deleted those articles. Sucks that you couldn't admit that it was you who was block evading, and thinking you're not at fault here.

@SHB2000: Wikivoyage has a formal policy that the traveller should come first . Content that is of value to readers, regardless of who added it, should not be deleted. Deleting content that is relevant to the project is considered vandalism on a wiki.

That doesn't mean you're excempt from your community ban

It appears we have a different interpretation of the policy. To me, the traveller comes first policy makes clear that it is the underlying principle on which any other decisions on Wikivoyage should be based, and that the best interest of the traveller takes priority over any other policies (including those regarding sanctions). SHB2000, your interpretation implies the traveller only comes second, a point of view most Wikivoyagers will find it hard to agree with. I should also point out that the page deletion vandalism in this case was repeatedly addressed by different IP editors. If your point of view differs from other community members, proper conduct is to open a discussion on a talk page and get opinions of other stakeholders.

Agree with Ikan here. Your racist edits don't serve the traveler at all. But if you're going to go on and blabber on like this and make personal attacks, uhm...

I've been enduring personal attacks on pretty much a weekly basis on en-voy for years, you get used to it after a while trust me. It's the sacrifice we make to share knowledge with the world for free.

AC, even if you actually had gotten personal attacks, that does not give you the excuse to do it.

SHB2000, no one here has the intention to make personal attacks against you. On the contrary, the objective is not to discourage you from further edits but rather to encourage you to follow the established procedures for deleting wiki content as pointed out to you here. I'm sorry your edits were interpreted as vandalism, this is because they had the usual characteristics of vandalism and were therefore flagged. It doesn't reflect a loss of trust of our community towards you. However we do advise that you make use of talk pages and other discussion channels before making future risky edits to avoid them from getting flagged again.

Who is "we"?

Everyone in the Wikimedia Community who agrees that deleting content relevant to a project should be discussed on the relevant talk pages first.

Yes, the traveler comes first means that people who have made numerous racist edits that are demonstrably false and distorted destination articles are banned and not allowed to edit anymore.

@Ikan Kekek: I could not find any false or racist edits in the Wikivoyage articles for Q147756, Q1025918 or Q132931 that were deleted. Can you link to specific objectionable content in either of these 3 articles?

Ikan is referring to your racist edits three years ago that led to your ban. Creating good content even while you're banned doesn't mean you're exempt from this.

SHB2000, what you're saying is that you're deleting good content with prejudice against individual contributors as only motivation. Such actions are not only destructive, but also go against the philosophy of a wiki which is built upon collaboration between individuals with different opinions but with a shared goal. Personal vendettas should not be a driver for any actions on a wiki, and certainly not for removing material that you yourself admit is indeed good content. Clearly we have a difference in opinion here, and if we wish to avoid future misunderstandings then a compromise must be reached. How can I convince you to adopt a more constructive attitude and evaluate content based on quality and relevance rather than on the individuals who contributed it?

You know very well that there was a strong consensus to ban you. The audacity to waste everyone's time with these absurd rants! I can't believe you're such a glutton for punishment, but for the edification of anyone who doesn't know or remember what you are, I cite this post and this one. Do you want to get yourself nominated for a ban from all of Wikimedia for not only having a record of demonstrably inaccurate bigoted posts but also libel and harassment?

Your insults and threats are not helping to resolve the conflict, Ikan. Approaching a difference in opinion with a positive attitude really isn't that hard.

Please explain. How is Ikan's posts a "threat"?

I disagree, I don't think further sanctions against this user would be constructive, and neither are they needed. Although the user has indeed admitted they were aware of the fact that they were deleting good content and therefore their acts were malicious, it appears they have stopped deleting articles after it was pointed out in this thread. Looking at their edit history on Wikivoyage, I could not find any more evidence of wrongdoing since proper procedures for deleting articles were pointed out to them. In fact, the user has since made numerous constructive edits, so what purpose would a ban have? Look, I understand it's not pleasant to discover that someone is deleting the fruits of your hard work behind your back, without following the procedure of tagging with {{vfd}} or {{delete}}, or even without discussing this on a talk page first. But I do not see guiding novice users as a waste of everyone's time, on the contrary. In my 10+ years contributing to different Wikimedia projects, I've never encountered a situation where a ban was an effective solution. After all, nothing stops the user from signing up for another account and resuming the same behaviour, it just makes the situation more complex and the user's edits harder to track. Not only does a ban not solve the issue, it actively makes it worse by closing communication channels for finding compromises and building constructive solutions. As difficult as it may be, engaging in a constructive dialogue and trying to understand why a user makes certain edits is the key to successful wiki collaborations. The Wikivoyage policy on the subject reminds us that bans might make an enemy out of a potential friend. I see a user ban as a failure of our community to understand viewpoints and opinions that are different from our own. Wikimedia is a global project, and geopolitical views can be quite different depending on where on the planet you ask the question. I noticed all the deleted articles are in the same politically sensitive region of Russia, so perhaps the behaviour is motivated by an independence movement, censorship, or maybe they just felt there was insufficient material to justify an article for these locations. Ikan Kekek, I invite you to take a look at how we handle unwanted edits on the Dutch Wikivoyage. As far as I remember back, not a single user has been banned there and yet that language edition isn't being overrun by vandals. Why? Because we as a community reach out to every single new user, be it registered or anonymous IP editors, and we point out policies to them if needed to guide them through their first edits. If this strategy works on the Dutch Wikivoyage, I don't see why it couldn't work on the English Wikivoyage as well.

When did I say my acts were malicious? I said it was good content, but never malicious nor do I have any issues with me nor Ikan deleting those articles, and that still does not give you a "get out of jail free card" to block evade under an IP. And I didn't stop deleting those articles, I only didn't delete them because I page create protected those articles, so you couldn't block evade and so I didn't have the need to delete them.

SHB2000, the issue here is not the act of deleting content itself, but the fact that you're deleting content without first discussing this with the community on the relevant talk pages. A wiki is a collaborative project, so when the agreed {{vfd}} nomination process is intentionally bypassed and/or ignored, that is frowned upon by the community, and a breach of the project's policies. And if you're doing this with multiple articles in a short time, it should be no surprise that such actions are flagged as vandalism, as was the case here.

Why do I even need to start a discussion when it was an obvious case of you block evading? That's not a breach of any policy, and it was not frowned by the community at all, except by one person, who was you – because it was you who evaded your block under an IP.

Artic Cynda was banned for numerous bigoted edits that were extremely horrific and also inaccurate, and now he's trying to argue that he should be allowed to block-evade because of the content of his block-evading edits. That's very audacious. He's also continuing to attack a member of a group he victimized in his edits, which is extremely audacious as well. That's the sum total of my comments on this, except that a total ban from Wikimedia should be considered because of his continuing efforts to libel and harass a Jew. ~~~~

No one is attacking or harassing any Jews here Ikan, it's always only you who keeps bringing that up even though it doesn't have anything to do with the subject of this discussion, which is the deletion of travel articles.

SHB2000, whether there was or wasn't a good reason to delete these articles is an entirely different issue, the main problem is that deleting them without following established procedures is a breach of the project's policies. Proper procedures for nominating articles for deletion were established for a reason. You can claim that it's an "obvious case", but clearly other members in the community disagree with that otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. If you look at the Wikivoyage deletion history for Q1025918 for example, there are 3 different editors who reverted your changes, represented by 3 unique IP addresses. Looking at the origin of these IPs, they are from 3 different ISPs, and also from different countries. This means it's very likely 3 editors independently making the decision to revert your deletions at various points in time, which I think is a strong signal that what you consider "very obvious" is not so obvious for many other members in the editing community.

The only person who disagrees is you, and you're no longer welcome in the English Wikivoyage community. And you do realise that there's something called a "VPN".

You didn't give other editors the chance to disagree, because you enacted the deletion without asking for the opinions of others on talk pages, which is what the {{vfd}} nomination procedure is designed to do: it invites other editors to voice their opinions. And regarding VPN usage, this is explicitly disallowed on Wikimedia projects per open proxy policy, so it's not applicable.

Just because there's a policy, that doesn't mean there's something called "policy defiance". And be honest here, but how can three IPs from different places, create the same page within a close timespan, and all use the edit summary "page deletion vandalism"? And what more, it seemed you added one of those Wikidata links straight after it was created?

That's an obvious case of w:WP:DUCK.

So what you're saying is that there is some kind of vigilante who defies the open proxy policies of Wikimedia, for the sole reason of reverting vandalism on Wikivoyage? That seems implausible, but even if it's true then it's hardly an issue in my opinion -- as long as these anonymous edits are genuine, then they benefits the project, which benefits all of us. I couldn't find any malicious or disruptive edits for any of those anonymous IPs. It is however preferable if they would edit under a named user account, so they could participate in this kind of discussions as well. It's correct that I restored the Wikidata links because I have these articles in my watch list, and got alerted to the changes.

ArticCynda, you created those articles under the 90.xx IP when you were banned a few months ago, and you're also going with that same "page deletion vandalism" sort of edit summaries both under those IPs you were block evading, and here. Now be honest here. But if we can't resolve this here, let us go to the noticeboard.

And stop thinking those anon edits are "genuine". That was you under an IP.

Well, a few proposals were already made to resolve this conflict, for example, redirecting the pages instead of deleting them, as a compromise solution. But so far you've ignored any attempt to find a common middle ground, instead you keep insisting that your point of view is the only correct one and that these 3 articles in particular should be deleted. However, the fact that some of the articles you insist should be deleted also exist in the French, Polish, Dutch, and even Farsi language editions of Wikivoyage illustrates that not everyone agrees with your point of view. Have you noticed that on the French, Polish, Dutch, and Farsi language editions none of these articles get vandalised or deleted?

One of the objectives of Wikivoyage is to offer travel information to any real world destination, so if there is an article for the Moon then sooner or later other editors are going to wonder why articles are missing for the 3 destinations you keep deleting, and recreate them. Or editors may notice they exist in other language editions and just translate them to English. Unless you can argue very good reasons on the respective talk pages why the English Wikivoyage should not have articles for locations that other language editions do, then I think it's only a matter of time before these articles are being restored, you delete them again, and an endless edit war continues. That is a scenario we all wish to avoid, and that's why resolving this conflict is important. Just to make it very clear SHB2000, no one here wants you banned, after all you already pointed out yourself that bans are ineffective. But it is clear that this dispute requires a long-term solution.

So with all this in mind, what is the solution you propose? If you want some kind of embargo on the creation of these articles on the English Wikivoyage, how long do you propose such an embargo should last? And how would it be communicated to other editors? And if you feel like they should only be restored once there is sufficient content (the significance criterion), how exactly would you define that threshold? And finally, what is your objection against redirecting instead of deleting as a compromise solution?