Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Block of User:Viriditas[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved: User has been unblocked, blocking admin has left a legthy explanation of his position, ultimately agreed with the unblock himself. Side discussions about BLP policy and on the RFA process can happen elsewhere. There's nothing left for admins to do here. Collapsing large discussion for page readibility purposes --Jayron32 05:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

long discussion now closed. Collapsed for readibility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would like to undo a week-long block of Viriditas, imposed by 23skidoo, but want to check consensus first. 23skidoo has been an admin since 2005, but not an active admin or editor recently. He arrived today at Talk:Juan Williams, his first edit since June, and reverted archiving that Viriditas had just completed. The archiving was apparently to remove personal attacks from the page. I don't know the rights and wrongs of it, but 23skidoo complained on Viriditas's page about his attitude, Viriditas objected to 23skidoo's arriving out of the blue to unarchive, and said he was meatpuppeting for other editors on the page. 23skidoo responded by blocking him for a week. See the exchange here.

It's so obvious to me that this is a bad block on so many levels that I was tempted to undo immediately, but we're not meant to do that, so I'm bringing it here. There have been objections to the block on User talk:Viriditas and User talk:23skidoo from Mastcell, SPhilbrick, Roux, Off2riorob, and myself. 23skidoo's response here.SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Support unblock. I was considering doing this earlier, but wanted to see 23skidoo's response first. As this is now here, I think consensus is to overturn the block. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
unblock. something's wrong this week... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblock. I'm willing to AGF that there was a good reason for the block, but I can't see anything that would stand up to scrutiny. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. Having read 23skidoo's response, this is not a legitimate block. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • On the fence: I encourage people to read 23skidoo's response on his talk page and not dismiss it as tl;dr. The point he is trying to make is certainly very valid. While I don't think the block was entirely proper, neither do I think that this archiving was proper. NW (Talk) 18:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Even if one assumes the archiving was improper, that's not the reason for the block given either in the blocklog or 23skidoo's response. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • No, that I understand that. The claimed reason was a "a bullying aggressive tone that is counter-productive to civil discourse on Wikipedia." 23skidoo backed up that assertion with evidence, of which the archiving was just one part. Still not sure if a block was the proper way to handle it, but it was an option, and I am not convinced that it was out of order. NW (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
        • "Not out of order" to one editor is a pretty low hurdle. The question is whether the block was "in order", and most replies so far say this block was not. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • On the fence per NW. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Reduce to time served as per Jclemens' summary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - This block seems to have been a bad response to Viriditas' bad behavior. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblock - clearly there are issues, an administrators that is basically inactive for one and a claim of involved in the dispute' Also support Administrator SlimVirgins not rushing to unblock out of process and attempting discussion and then bringing the issue here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with your second sentence. I also hope that no other administrator will rush to unblock and curtail this discussion. What has happened so far is setting a good precedent. NW (Talk) 18:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock, perhaps the archiving was improper, but this wasn't the reason given for the block -- the reason given indicates a highly improper block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    But the "reason given" isn't the only explanation we have to work with. Block summaries should not overrule lengthy explanations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Reduce to time served per NW and 23skidoo's response. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblock, note that block was improper in the unblock entry in the log. → ROUX  18:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblock, with note in block log per Roux. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblock. The tools were misused here and I can't support a revisionist attempt to make a bad block into a faux-good one.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support roux; "time served" is not sufficient in this case. The block was inappropriate. Indeed, I think it could be argued that 23skidoo's response merit a block. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No, definitely not. While it's questionable whether 23skidoo should have imposed the block at that time, an uninvolved admin given the explanation here would likely have reached the same conclusion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm uninvolved, and I did not reach the same conclusion given that explanation. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblock now, and note that it was an incorrect block in the log as suggested by Roux. Consensus seems pretty clear, this wasn't a good block and it should be undone sooner rather than later. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • "Hell no" on "unblock now", discussion is underway and lively. Once it peters down a bit, an uninvolved admin can determine consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • In the meantime, we're driving off an editor who shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
        • And how do we know that, when Viriditas hasn't edited their talk page since the block was imposed? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict × 2) I think the arguments of almost a dozen uninvolved editors here are pretty compelling, but apparently you're willing to block any admin who considers that an indication of consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Unblock or Change of Block Length BUT AFTER an uninvolved admin or community consensus determines (a) if a block was appropriate and (b) if so, for how long (a day? a week?) - unless 23skidoo can provide sufficient rationale for why a block by an involved admin was appropriate. It would have been easy enough for 23skidoo to get an uninvolved admin to review and (if warranted) block to ensure no impression of impropriety existed. After that, possible review of 23skidoo's actions and if any repercussions for such are warranted. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 18:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with roux. unblock plus note in block log. This was a hasty and unwarranted block.--RegentsPark (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock with message in unblock. Mathsci (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
*Strongly support block.

As one of the editors who was being treated roughly by Viriditas I wish to place on record my support for the actions of 23skidoo in placing a temporary block on an editor who was - to put it mildly - very intimidating in his approach to me and to other editors. 23skidoo noted some of the wording used by Viriditas in his explanation for why the block was imposed. There are often tensions when one is passionate about a topic one is editing. We are all accustomed to those. But as an editor who has a reputation for working to achieve consensus and who has been awarded Barnstars etc and complimented for my spirit of compromise, I was a little startled to read text like the following from Viriditas - directed towards me and to others: (All of these can be seen in recent edit summaries and notes left on various talk pages by Viriditas.)

"Anyone who continues to use Wikipedia to fight these battles will be taken to task".

"You either go with the sources or you don't edit."

"You either need to learn how to write biography articles on Wikipedia, or you need to stop writing. It's very simple."

"If you didn't already know this was wrong before you added it, then now you do, and I've set you right. Don't do it again."

I'm sure no one reading the above would feel comfortable being on the receiving end of such abrasive messages. I've been involved in edit wars very occasionally over the years and I'm not accustomed to such blunt and heavy-handed diktats being handed down from one editor to others. I support the block, as long as it is only for a few days to help him cool off. And I hope that when Viriditas returns in a few days time, he will try to be a little more sensitive to other editors. I contribute to many different articles on Wikipedia and enjoy being part of the community. I don't want to be too frightened to edit because an editor is so aggressive in his interactions with other editors that I am intimidated. Davidpatrick (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) That all looks like sound advice to me; I'd suggest getting a thicker skin, taking the advice without jumping to complain about a user you disagree with, and learning about our blocking policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I've reviewed every discussion I could find and it looks to me like exactly the kind of "admin cowboy" block that should lead to a quick desysopping and for which Wiki should have a process in place for desysopping short of arbcom-- the very problems with abusive admins that have been oft-discussed of late. Wrong on many levels. I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
And what, may I ask, has Davidpatrick done wrong here? Kansan (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagreed with Sandy Georgia? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) uncalled for on my part. See SandyGeorgias talk page. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblock asap with note in block log that this was an improper block. The Admin should lose his bit, anyone who hasn't been using his tools and then suddenly swoops in with this sort of block is not an asset to the project. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Why? Don't we always say that it should be uninvolved admins who are dealing with things? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As an uninvolved admin, my first impression is that this block is not in accordance with the blocking policy. As far as i can tell the block was for the "meatpuppet" accusation. I don't think such an accusation itself warrants a block but certainly not a block by the admin it was levelled at. If I'm missing something please explain. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I realize that the majority of people here are rushing (not sure why there is such a frantic rush) to determine the primary issue of the blocking. Am I being a fool to hope that someone might stop the rush for just 2 minutes and read the actual examples of abusive messages that were referred to by 23skidoo when he placed a warning ahead of imposing the block? If the abusive messages written by Viriditas were PART of the reason for the warning about and then imposing the block are part of this - then surely that is pertinent? Or does no one care about the underlying issue? And/or does no one care about Wiki-Bullying? Davidpatrick (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking right now would be a bad thing[edit]

For the record, folks, I'm strongly considering blocking anyone who undoes this block in the next little while. Consensus is in the process of being determined: waiting a couple of hours isn't going to make much of a difference in a 1-week block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm strongly considering blocking anyone who blocks anyone for undoing the block.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd recommend striking that pretty quickly Brewcrewer, impersonating an admin isn't going to end well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Erm... he was quite clearly joking; it was a completely reasonable comment; don't be so ridiculously abrasive. ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
He was joking. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
and then i'll block anyone who can't take a joke.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep your jokes on your own talk please and stop adding to the three-ring circus at ANI where important matters should be discussed without sideshows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Joke or otherwise, making such a joke could very easily confuse newcomers, and impersonating an admin, directly or indirectly, shouldn't be tolerated. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And for the benefit of Viriditas block log, I encourage the original blocking admin to undo it with a note that it was wrong and a link to the discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Frankly Sarek, doing so will simply be adding to your growing list of blocks which the community has had to call you here on. I would strongly advise against it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(too many edit conflicts)Yes let's all start blocking one another. It sounds like fun! Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Too many edit conflicts caused by unnecessary childish comments like the above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow Sandy..... You know, sometimes a little light humor helps defuse situations and reminds us that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not that important. NickCT (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless you happen to be the editor on the other end of an unfair block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If wikipedia is that important for an editor on the other end of an unfair block, perhaps the unfair block will serve as a well needed wikiBreak. NickCT (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not so well-versed as the majority of people posting here about Wiki policy on blocking and I don't claim to be. All I hope is that those who are concerned for the civility of Wikipedia will take a little time - and not rush to judgement one way or the other. The thing that bothers me is just the tone of the comments dished out to me and other editors (I was not alone). See talk page Veriss (talk). I have a reasonably thick skin. But I love Wikipedia as a community. And I just think it's a terrible shame to have heavy-handed comments thrown at people with the air of "do it my way or leave Wikipedia". Perhaps I'm being too utopian in my thinking. But aren't we supposed to be trying to maintain a civil discourse on Wikipedia? Surely we don't want people to be intimidated or left feeling battered when editing in good faith? Davidpatrick (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't see any real dissent here. Consensus of almost everyone who has posted on the subject was that this was a bad block. Unblocking seems to be the obvious next step. What there is not yet consensus for is what should be done about 23skiddoo. → ROUX  18:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree - there's enough of a consensus to justify an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • On a related note though (to GW's post), we have AN/Is for a reason. We should follow their procedures or they become meaningless. Sarek's growing or not list of blocks (which...) should be irrelevant to us following procedure here - even if (as it seems) such a stern warning reminding us to do so is required.
      • Sufficient discussion time has not concluded
      • The user (at least last time I checked) did not request an unblock
      • There may be valid reasons (as brought up above) for the block or a portion thereof, and the validity of the block under same or similar grounds should be reviewed by the community and/or uninvolved admins to determine whether a reduction is warranted or a block removal.
And once a consensus is met, then perhaps we decide what actions or sanctions or whatever towards 23skidoo are warranted by the improper/proper/undecided block placed by him/her. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 18:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Robert, I completely disagree - we have WP:BURO and WP:IAR for good reason. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree Don't forget WP:DONOHARM (alright it's actually about BLPs but I think the concept of doing no harm applies here as well). Leaving a bad block in place while we waste further time discussing it is potentially doing a lot of harm. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this discussion is going to be closed as "good block", even if it turns out there are other grounds for which a block may be justified: the rationale given was completely against policy and the block should be undone immediately. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I realize that the majority of people here are rushing (not sure why there is such a frantic rush) to determine the primary issue of the blocking. Am I being a fool to hope that someone might stop the rush for just 2 minutes and read the actual examples of abusive messages that were referred to by 23skidoo when he placed a warning ahead of imposing the block? If the abusive messages written by Viriditas were PART of the reason for the warning about and then imposing the block are part of this - then surely that is pertinent? Or does no one care about the underlying issue? And/or does no one care about Wiki-Bullying? Davidpatrick (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of the underlying issue is that you brought a personal dispute from a user talkpage to an article talk page (see WP:BATTLEGROUND), and then 23skidoo restored them after they were removed. See this diff in which Viriditas pointed that out to 23skidoo. You may note from the discussion here that very few editors opining have had such a strong reaction to the commentary as you did; it does take two to tango, and copying a talk page discussion to an article talk page, followed by an admin sweeping in to reinforce that action, helped feed the flames here. I'm sorry if my comments above (about "talking to", which in no way meant any sort of warning, hence the wording "talk") appeared to conflate desysopping of an admin with anything related to you; that was not my intent. My intent was to point out that you are working on a contentious BLP, sourcing in BLPs and enforcement of talk page commentary is stringent, and you had a hand in the blowup. Dispute resolution processes are available on Wiki if you thought Viriditas was out of line-- bringing a battle onto the article talk page was not wise. Had you taken your concerns to WP:WQA, this whole affair might have been avoided, and Viriditas wouldn't have an unjust block on his blocklog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) I think the discussion here is healthy, but it's also important not to keep Viriditas languishing under this block. There's clear consensus to reverse it, and I can't see that changing. It would be better if 23skidoo would undo it himself, but he seems to have gone offline (something we're not meant to do after a contentious block), so I'll be undoing it shortly unless there are strong objections and good reasons not to. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • SV, have you by any chance checked the timestamp on that block you're criticizing him for going offline after? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, 23skidoo blocked Viriditas at 06:13 26 Oct, which was within 12 edits and two hours of his returning after a four-month break, the first time he had blocked anyone since January 2009. He went offline one minute later. He returned around 30 hours later for three minutes, responded with an explanation, then disappeared again. That compounds the inappropriateness of the block, in my view. Admins know they have to stick around after a contentious block to explain themselves and undo things in case they've made a mistake. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI HJ Mitchell has unblocked. It seems SarekVulcan immediately swallowed his idea of blocking any unblocking admin... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)No, I looked at the discussion, saw that there was a clear consensus that I was on the wrong side of, and decided not to block. There was a good hour of lively discussion there -- the result was much clearer than when my block was overturned while discussion was ongoing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah... my apologies GW and <redact>DP</redact> PK. I was under the impression (from previous AN/Is where very similar situations occurred) that in such, the community having sufficient time to respond, and actually analyze the issues at hand trumped that. Interestingly, there have been admins who've gotten "screamed" at for not allowing the at least 24 hours, even when it was a snowball's chance...
And, I guess I'd expected an uninvolved admin to maybe... separate this into it's core components for proper comment. (1) Was the block warranted, (2) Should it be removed post haste, (3) Was 23skidoo's actions inappropriate, (4) is a block under different grounds warranted (thus simply requiring a change of rationale). But, that's just my opinion on what may have made the jumble above more readable. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, many of us do care about wikibullying-- particularly from admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have, as GW says, unblocked Viriditas. There were several issues with the block, but I don't think it's appropriate to say that it was abusive. I believe the blocking admin acted in good faith, but the consensus here appears to be that he erred in making a block. I would recommend that this discussion be closed with 23Skidoo advised to seek comments at ANI or another appropriate venue for potentially questionable blocks in future and Viriditas advised to avoid appearing to inflame already heated situations and everybody else advised to go write an article, offer a review, block a vandal or something else that benefits the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not certain I can agree with "good faith", since it seems more likely that the block was more of a "I'm too angry to consider the consequences" thing. But I do agree that claiming abuse is premature until we at least get a comment from Skidoo; it's very possible that Skidoo intended to come back after cooling off, apologise, and lift the block. Skidoo needs to cool off and then recognise that it was a bad block, not be blocked desysopped as suggested below: how do we justify that as a preventative measure without hearing Skidoo's response to this thread? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    The block was made at 06:13, 26 October 2010, followed by a notice at 06:14. Skidoo's next edit was at 12:44, 27 October 2010. If Skidoo "intended to come back after cooling off, apologise, and lift the block", or "needs to cool off", is 30 hours enough time? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    Never mind, I had overlooked the time of the block and assumed it was skidoo's last action before going offline, since that's what the discussion appeared to be suggesting. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Desysop 23skidoo[edit]

According to WP:ADMIN, the next step is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges or Wikipedia:Administrator review/23skidoo. It would be a welcome change to see it work for once, but what is the difference between RFC/U and Administrator review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jumping the gun. Let's wait to see what 23skidoo does and says when he returns. This proposal is too hasty. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Desysops can also only be enacted by Arbcom, as far as I'm aware. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/ Theresa/Giftiger - If 23skidoo is big enough to drop the block himself I think we can call this resolved. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
@Giftiger wunsch, you're correct, unless 23skidoo is open to recall; and even if that's the case, I don't think anyone who was involved in the Herostratus fiasco wants to do that again, at least not for a very long time and with better systems in place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, IIRC, anyone can request an admin review, including for admins who have done nothing wrong - simply to get feedback from the community. It is in that case, very similar to an editor review. And of course, we know what RfC/U's are generally used for. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
@NickCT, he didn't drop the block himself. And we don't stop admin abuse by sweeping it under the rug. If we were talking about an active admin, I might understand; the re-appearance to block is a concern.
@ Robert, I still don't know which venue is more useful for a case like this, but it's high time we all started using one of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
He's not online. It's not as if he refused to unblock. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────IF a venue was needed:

  • Assuming enough people believe 23's actions were abusive: RfC/U (Abuse of Admin Tools)
  • Assuming enough people simply wanted it reviewed by uninvolved editors: Admin Review

Sad thing is, very few are stopping to decide or determine if a block was warranted - and very few are willing to wait till 23 gets back to provide justification/apology/etc. Seems a bit too early to decide which when we havent even engaged in a discussion of the why/who/how with all parties involved. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Before an RFC/U, the first port of call should be discussing it with the user. Since they have not yet been afforded a decent opportunity to reply, this is quite simply premature until there has been input from skidoo, and an RFC/U should not be started at this time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ummm GW, I believe I said that (directly above you, and at least once in the other conversation sections). ;-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Not quite the same thing, I was specifically mentioning that a RFC/U can't be started without first trying (or preferrably exhausting) the option of discussing with the user first. I hope I didn't give the impression that this was in response to your comment, it's just a general, unindented bullet point on the section. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Let's wait. It's premature and irresponsible to move ahead until we here from the admin. Let's step back for a bit and wait. JodyB talk 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with everybody else who says that we ought to give skidoo a chance to respond. While there are some serious issues to be discussed, for sure, I'd also like to remind everybody that there are no angry mastodons here. Kansan (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There should be a chance for the Admin to respond, however I also agree that this is a serious matter. Letting him respond doesn't mean we hat this, archive it, and hope everyone forgets.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The key thing is for skidoo to acknowledge that he wasn't the one to do any blocking which was called for. Desysoping is not happening, and should not happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing a short block tossed on SandyGeorgia for clear violation of WP:NPA. WP:ANI is not for frivolous attmepts to form a lynch mob, and he ought to know better given how long he's been around. Jtrainor (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Way over the top. Blocks are not toys. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that's why he's not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Pot, kettle, black. Who's the one trying to form a lynch mob? StrPby (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Response from 23skidoo[edit]

So much heat generated and so many things written. Some of them fair questions and comments. Others heated and under-researched. C'est la vie. Nothing changes on Wikipedia... It would take too much time to respond to every comment offered. And I don't think it would advance the matter to do so. So I propose to be pragmatic and deal just with a few key points.
1) SlimVirgin wrote: It would be better if 23skidoo would undo it himself, but he seems to have gone offline (something we're not meant to do after a contentious block)

I placed this block at approx. 10pm MST on Monday October 25. It did not seem contentious then. And indeed 36 hours went by before it very suddenly became "contentious" among approximately 12-15 people. This thread started at 17:50 UTC on Wednesday October 27. I am not aware of any mandatory obligation to stay on-line 24/7. Maybe some people can. But as much as I love Wikipedia - I also have an outside life. It helps one keep a perspective on matters.

2) Personally, I think it would have been prudent to take a little more time to consider the matter of the block and allow me the courtesy of being able to respond to some of the questions raised. But a majority of people on this page couldn't or didn't wish to wait an hour or so for me to be given an opportunity. My happening to not be online during the exact hour that someone people felt this issue had to be resolved (on Tuesday morning I learned had I lost work, and my priority became seeking a new source of income) (edit: a typo created an unintended smiley in the original version of this post) denied me the opportunity of responding to misperceptions and misinterpretations before conclusions were made, judgements decreed, actions taken.
3) A decision was made by an administrator to over-rule my block. So be it. I'm not going to fight it. That matter is therefore over.
4) If the original material is read slowly, carefully and looked at - something hard to do in a frenzy of feeling "something must be done in the next hour", I think my action stands up. It was certainly a good faith action. And not done in anger or anything like it.
5) If you bother to look me up, I have been registered on Wikipedia since January 2003. I have contributed to over 12,000 unique pages. I have made over 36,800 edits to date. (And several thousand more prior to signing-up when I was still using third-party computers). I have been an administrator for 6 years. I am proud to say that I have helped in the finding of consensus in many an edit war.
6) I have already posted my reasons for imposing the block on the talk page of the editor in question. Despite a warning about not archiving/deleting article talk page text (some of which was very recent) and a clear reference to his wiki-bullying that was (and is) very apparent to anyone who actually bothers to look, his response was to accuse me of being a "meat puppet" without offering any evidence for what was a baseless charge. This was consistent with his documented wiki-bullying of two separate editors within the preceding day.
In the light of that I thought that he should be blocked to give him time to cool off.
Should that block have been for a week? That's a fair question. Perhaps it should have been for a shorter period. My hope was that the time off from editing would enable him to cool down. And reflect on the tone of his writing to other editors.
7) I don't think it is the intent of people on this page to submit me to a "Star Chamber"-like inquisition for having acted to stop an editor making a groundless accusation against an administrator after a clear warning had been given to stop archiving recent talk page posts. And to give that editor a time to cool off after his well-documented wiki-bullying. In any event, I am assuming good faith on behalf of my fellow Administrators. I don't subscribe to the views of cynics about how Wikipedia conducts itself.
8) I'm sure that there are more important topics with which we can all busy ourselves - including the general improvement of Wikipedia to which we all give so much of our time and passion. And I for one would like to see a greater civility in all discourse on Wikipedia - among both editors and administrators. Life is too short for the alternative... 23skidoo (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I find this an adequate explanation, which includes as much of an apology as we are likely to get. I am not one to care much about the form of words which accompanies the sentiment. And I think we have wasted enough pixels on this. Can we build an encyclopedia now?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "It did not seem contentious then. And indeed 36 hours went by before it very suddenly became "contentious" among approximately 12-15 people. " - this is not entirely accurate. At least three people, self included, posted both to your tpage and that of Viriditas indicating problems with the block in a very short time after you blocked. → ROUX  20:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) You went offline one minute after blocking Viriditas, one of your first actions after a four-month break. You returned 30 hours later for three minutes, then left again after posting an explanation but without sticking around to sort things out. Admins should never act that way, unless they leave a note making it clear that anyone can unblock without consulting them. I'm concerned that you don't see how inappropriate this whole thing was, 23. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I was totally with you until got got to 8. 'Tis bad form to answer a charge of "you did something wrong" with "don't you have better things to be doing" Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree about #8, but at the same time, it does not change the relevance (or lack thereof) of #1-7. So perhaps, as #8 isn't really a point about the situation, we continue by evaluating #1-7? Not suggesting you wouldn't already be doing that - but pointing it out before this becomes a debate on #8 and skips addressing the rest. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm good with his thinking here especially his attitude. He's not being hateful or spiteful and I think we understand that he did this with good intentions although the decision itself is questioned. JodyB talk 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Two thoughts. i) is 23skidoo's rationale compatible with Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks? ii) if there's any lesson to be had from recent ANI debates on similar situations, which 23skidoo presumably missed, it's that blocks like this are better discussed by the community before being made. Rd232 talk 21:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I am old enough - in human years and in Wiki-years - to know that one cannot please everyone. So I am appreciative of responses like the ones by Wehwalt, JodyB and Rd232. And while I am disappointed in some of the others - that is life. Theresa Knott feels that it is "bad form to answer a charge of "you did something wrong" with "don't you have better things to be doing"". So do I. Which is why I was so careful to express the sentiment that WE (not "you") have better things to be doing. We are all in this together. Something that Wehwalt expresses perfectly for all of us: "I think we have wasted enough pixels on this. Can we build an encyclopedia now?"
So I am not planning on responding to each and every opinion expressed. I will say this though. I commend HJ Mitchell for his gracious and calm way of dealing with things. His thoughtful handling of the matter has just resulted in the expression of a positive attitude from the editor whose actions had triggered this issue in the first place. That is ultimately all I hoped to achieve. It would have been ideal if that result could have been achieved earlier. But better late than never. I think we have all learned something from this. So thank you HJ Mitchell for leading us to that. 23skidoo (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, in any event, he shouldn't have been the one to determine a block. But the calls for his head, especially from people who have been here for a long time, and hold responsible positions here, outrage me. I ask them, could you do your best work under a sword of Damocles, ready to come down on you at your first mistake? Sorry if that sounds like a campaign speech, too much time at the Nixon library ... can we close this thread now?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at WT:RFA about what's wrong there. Rather than looking at the what's happening at RFA for the reasons we should be looking at what's happening here. As far as I am concerned established (however that is defined) editors being blocked is a bigger deal than someone losing the admin bit, but for whatever reason the opposite holds true. You talk about the sword of damocles hanging over admin's heads, but at least they can still actually edit if desysopped. At the moment it seems that it is the regular editors who are in danger of being blocked under flimsy grounds by trigger happy admins, and they cannot do anything once blocked. Apologies for getting all meta. Quantpole (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm well if you desysop admins for making one mistake then you'd run out of admins pretty quickly as it is impossible to never ever make an error of judgement. It's certainly not true that you can't do anything while being blocked., that's what the unblock request template is for. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 23:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh joy. You can try and beg another admin to let you carry on improving the encyclopedia. If the admin bit was easier to lose then maybe it would be more willingly handed out. The situation with blocking established editors over the last couple of weeks has been farcical. Unless a block is cut and dried (e.g. 3RR, arbcom enforcement) then I don't think any admin should take it upon themselves to make a "judgement call" to block an editor. It should be by consensus instead. Quantpole (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh I completely agree. Established users who aren't under some kind of Arbcom restriction, or who haven't gone nuts should not be blocked except in exceptional circumstances. I just think that an admin who makes 1 error of judgement shouldn't be deadminned. They should be criticized but not lose their bit over one incident. A havbit of doing so is a different matter. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 23:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Time to put the pitchforks down please. Bad blocks happen, and as far as bad blocks go, this one appears to have been pretty middling: I've seen worse, I've seen less bad. As far as explanations for actions not supported by consensus go, this tends to be one of the better ones. He called it like he saw it; community consensus differed. No good reason to take away the bit has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Recapping what we've learned here:
  1. Important BLP issues are lost in the shuffle at ANI; BLP doesn't really matter, does it? We've seen that at RFA lately, too.
  2. An admin can return from a four-month absence, not answer why or how that occurred, make a really bad block and then not stick around to deal with the queries, but others will rally 'round and even attack editors who suggest something should be done about admin abuse.
  3. Admins can bully and threaten other editors who challenge a bad block and ignorance of BLP.
  4. Adminship is pretty much a "for life" job; when admins close rank, there is no offense to the lowly editor worthy of even an RFC/U.

Business as usual; admins can abuse others as long as they want, until/unless their offenses rise to the level warranting an arb case. Oh, and to the editor who suggested slapping a block on me for raising these issues: knock yourself out. Blocks are thrown around so wantonly these days that having a block log no longer means much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP was never discussed in this thread, there is not much rallying around several admins were highly critical of the block, no idea what you are talking about when you say admins bullied editors who challenged a bad block. When is this supposed to have happened? You 4th point might have some merit. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 23:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, feel free to run for adminship. I'll gladly offer my support despite (or because of?) your attitude about it. I have some perspective on doing what I thought was the right thing, and getting completely ripped a new orifice for it at ANI, and I can think of a bunch of other administrators who have similarly run afoul of the community. One mistake does not a desysop'ing make. Should there be a trend, it would be a much more relevant discussion. I've never gotten in trouble for a bad block, but mostly because I rarely block anyone with more than 10 edits. :-) Come sit on this side of the fence for a while, see how life is when you try an use the tools appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I do "sit on that side of the fence": I get regularly ripped every time I archive a FAC (and sometimes for promoting them, too). Your argument would make perfect sense ... were it not for the sudden re-appearance to block an editor. Had he been around, doing routine admin business as usual, the whole thing might not smell quite so fishy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Fishy? I thought you were usually on the receiving end of conspiracy theories, Sandy!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I mostly concurr with User:SandyGeorgia's summary of this episode. I wish I didn't. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lisbon lion67's use of wikipedia for advertising[edit]

Lisbon lion67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have tried unsuccessfully several times to get this user to stop advertising their facebook group in wikipedia.

As you may note from the several beginning diffs above, I have warned them that this addition violates WP:COI, WP:N\WP:WEB, and most of all, WP:UNDUE(WP:NPOV). As they have not taken the warnings to heart, and have decided to continue edit warring(if even doing it in a slow, drawn-out manner), I am taking what I term a spam/advertising incident here for more eyes.

They have been notified of this thread.— dαlus Contribs 21:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If I might speak in my defence (Not sure if this is the place to do so, but I'll try anyway), I have now made revisions to the account, which I have tried to update, but the user Daedalus969 keeps watering down the article to a very vague account. I have removed anything that could be construed as advertising myself or my own page. I am simply trying to present an accurate account of this very notable campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisbon lion67 (talkcontribs) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good and understandable, but we have talkpages for a reason. Instead of reverting and reverting what seems to be borderline-advertisement, ow about making your point on the article's talkpage and waiting for people to discuss it. Right now, I see you edit warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, I wasn't really aware that it would come up like that. The way I saw it was that someone was trying to remove the specifics of the campaign. I understand now why that would happen. I have made changes to the article (saved on my computer) but I'm scared to try putting them on the article for fear I get reported and blocked from editing. What should I do? Put them on here for someone to review if they fit the guidelines?--Lisbon lion67 (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You could put them on the talkpage (only the bit you want changed) and ask for comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have just done that. I have basically put on my revision to the discussion part. If no-one responds, how long do I wait before going ahead with the revision? --Lisbon lion67 (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Consensus doesn't work by failure to respond. Consensus is worked out amongst editors; meaning you wait until people respond, you don't give them a time limit to do so.— dαlus Contribs 22:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but if people review and have no problem with it, they may not leave a comment. It seems only if I put something that is contentious will people respond? Also, most people don't ever look at the discussion pages, they only look at the article. If there is nothing on the main article (as is currently) about the campaign, I'm not convinced people will review the discussion page to see what might be said? Would I be out of order to provide a revised contribution to the page, with an expanded discussion on the discussion page? --Lisbon lion67 (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For someone rather new here, you're in no position to say that 'most people never look at the talk pages'. It is actually the direct opposite. Most editors here use the talk pages, as that is how consensus is developed. By discussing and not edit warring, as indeed, the latter usually ends with a block.
As to order, yes you would. Many editors would notice, as when a page is watch-listed, any changes to the corresponding talk page show up in the watchlist. It isn't possible to only watch one part.
Lastly, just because people don't have a problem with it, that doesn't mean they wouldn't post. This isn't something that is going to happen right away. You need to give it time, and you need to be patient about it.— dαlus Contribs 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am having to learn very quickly, we all had to learn at some point. I have now focused my attention to the talk page of the article. How do I know if and when I have consensus and can then proceed with revision to the main article? --Lisbon lion67 (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS.— dαlus Contribs 07:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:'s repeated legal threats[edit] (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours for legal threats. The NLT policy was explained to them on their Talk page, and instead of retracting it, they have repeated their threat. Corvus cornixtalk 05:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access removed, left a note refering them to Mike Godwin. --Jayron32 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Is that a good idea? Godwin resigned on October 22nd. Sven Manguard Talk 06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, Paul Siebert, Justus Maximus, Karl Marx, Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, …[edit]

AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert[edit]

I note with disappointment and regret that recent developments are leaving me with no other choice but to draw attention to the behavior of the above editors.

The facts of the case are as follows.

(1) On 5 October 2010, at 12:57 (UTC), I included in the article “Communist terrorism” the following passage with a quote by Marx (that apparently no one here had been able to trace since 1996 when it was mentioned by Edvard Radzinsky), under the section “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders”:

“In his article, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna”, ‘’Neue Rheinische Zeitung’’, No. 136, 7 Nov. 1848, Karl Marx wrote: “… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one meansrevolutionary terrorism.””

To which I provided the following references:

Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, Vol. V, 1959, pp. 455-7.; for English translation see”

On 6 October, at 03:54 (UTC), AndyTheGrump (in his own words) “amended Marx to full version.”

On 6 October, at 03:56 (UTC), AndyTheGrump posted the following statement on the talk page:

“I have amended the passage to give the quote in full. As it stood, the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis, arguably distorted the intended meaning.”

What I felt to be particularly discourteous and offensive was the fact that AndyTheGrump made absolutely no attempt to provide any evidence as to (a) what the intended meaning was, (b) why the quote as initially provided by me was “distorting” that meaning, and (c) why he thought it had been my intention to “distort” anything.

(2) On 6 October, at 10:53 (UTC), I included the following passage in the above-mentioned article, under the same section:

“Thus, in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky (1918), Lenin wrote: “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [such as Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence.””

It was my intention at a later point, when I had the time to do so, to include an observation made by Robert Service in his work A History of Twentieth-Century Russia to the effect that Lenin in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky advocated dictatorship and terror, as well as provide the following quote from Engels’ On Authority (which Lenin uses to support his own position on dictatorship and revolutionary violence, including state terror):

““To make things clearer, we will quote Marx and Engels to show what they said on the subject of dictatorship …: “… if the victorious party” (in a revolution) “does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.””

It was (and still is) my sincere belief that the above quotes would have served to illustrate the views on the matter held by leading Marxists. Nor can there be any doubt that the quotes were relevant to the section entitled “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders.”

On 6 October, at 16:41 (UTC), Paul Siebert (in his own words) “Removed the quote form [sic] “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky””, adding that “Lenin does not use a word “terror” there at all.”

As I pointed out, Lenin must have used the word “terror” in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky at the very least in the Engels quote he is using in that work for the simple reason that (a) Engels’ original text (and English translation) has the word “terror” and (b) the English translation of The Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky itself has the word “terror”.

Paul Siebert unreasonably dismissed as “irrelevant” not only the Lenin quote I had included in the article and the Lenin quote I suggested on the talk page, but the entire The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky.

On 6 October, at 16:51 (UTC), without adducing any evidence to substantiate his statements, Paul Siebert posted the following on the talk page:

“This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there. The word “terror” is mentioned twice in the foot notes. Lenin does not use it”.

Without providing any explanation as to what the footnotes were about, Paul Siebert insisted that the Russian original which he is able to read does not have the word “terror” (except, as already stated, “in the footnotes”), but that it has the word strakh which means “fear” and cannot mean “terror.”

Apart from the fact that his own interpretation or translation of the Russian text clearly constitutes original research, Paul Siebert continues to insist that the word strakh does not mean terror despite the fact that it does so:

(a) as is evident from the context;

(b) as is evident from the Oxford Russian Dictionary;

(c) as is evident from the English translation (online version available at [1]);


(d) as any educated Russian speaker can confirm.

In addition, Lenin’s endorsement of terror has been confirmed by a number of respected historians, e.g., Robert Service in A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p 108:

“Lenin, as he recovered from his wounds, wrote the booklet The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky, in which he advocated dictatorship and terror”

and Richard Pipes in Communism: A Brief History, p. 39:

“He [Lenin] was quite prepared to resort to unlimited terror to destroy his opponents and cow the rest of the population.”

It is evident from this that the words “This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there” constitute a false statement.

In light of the evidence, Paul Siebert must have been, or subsequently become, aware of the fact that his statement is false.

On 8 October, at 17:06 (UTC), Paul Siebert posted the following statement on the talk page:

“it is worth noting that Bolsheviks didn’t start terror immediately after coming to power, which can be demonstrated by the fact that death penalty was completely abolished by them in 1917.”

The fact is that the Bolshevik government did not abolish the death penalty. It confirmed the abolition thereof enacted on 12 March 1917 by Kerensky’s Provisional government. Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917 and had expressly ordered his followers not to support the Kerensky government (Richard Pipes, The Unknown Lenin, 1996, p. 15). In addition, after coming to power, the Bolshevik government actually restored the death penalty in respect of certain crimes (e.g., Fanny Kaplan was executed on 4 September, 1918) and the CHEKA (the secret police established by Lenin in December 1917, i.e., immediately after Bolshevik takeover of power) was granted discretionary death-penalty powers by Lenin 1921 (Figes, 1998; Volkogonov, 1994). Lenin himself declared that it was “not possible to make a revolution without executions”; ordered the Red Terror campaign in September 1918 (Pipes, p. 56); and “the transformation of the war [WWI] from a conflict between nations to one between classes had been a central plank in the Bolshevik platform long before 1917” (Richard Pipes, Communism, 2001, p. 41).

It follows that it is legitimate to question Paul Siebert’s good faith.

It also follows that it is legitimate to ask (a) why Paul Siebert is making false statements and (b) why he is using such statements as a pretext to exclude relevant material from the article and/or discussion.

It must be noted that both my initial contributions and subsequent observations were in response to the call to help improve the article; were relevant to the section under discussion; and were clearly made in good faith.

By contrast, not only have Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump displayed discourteous and offensive behavior from the very start, but they have chosen to resort to illegitimate and unacceptable tactics such as making unsubstantiated, false, and misleading statements in order to promote a pro-Marxist agenda, impose their own biased views on others, and preclude any balanced and objective discussion from taking place.

Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump have repeatedly attempted to conceal or deny historical facts linking prominent Marxists with terrorism, such as, that Marx was known as “The Red Terror Doctor” on account of his endorsement of terror as a policy; that both Marx and his associate Engels made statements in support of terror/terrorism; that Marx wrote, “there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one meansrevolutionary terrorism” (and that this quote in Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism is annotated approvingly by Stalin); that Engels defines revolution in general “as rule imposed by means of the terror that the arms of the victorious party inspire in the reactionaries” (and that this definition is quoted with approval by Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky); that they were personally involved in armed insurrections (amounting to terrorism on account of their intention to establish a dictatorship based on terror); that they are discussed in scholarly publications on terrorism (e.g., Peter Calvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, in the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism), etc.

In summation, it appears that the above-mentioned editors have effectively hijacked the article for their own purposes and are doing as they please with total impunity. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

PS I have requested the editor Snowded to advise me on the procedure for taking the matter to a higher authority but I received no reply. Being new to Wikipedia, I hope this is the correct place for lodging the above complaint. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the request Justus, best to place on my talk page as your article talk pages are very very long and its easy to miss things. If I had seen it I would have advised you against the above--Snowded TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
See this previous thread from ANI a week ago, where JM's editing was discussed. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I have left a message about this request on the user talk pages of AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mathsci, thank you for informing me about this discussion. To make it more productive, can we ask Justus Maximus to do the following:
  1. To try to separate a content dispute between them and a number of other editors from behavioural issues, because the former is not supposed to be a subject of the current thread.
  2. To provide at least one example when they tried to seriously comment on the quotes from the reliable scholarly sources provided by me. This sources contradicted to the edits proposed by them, however, they rejected them under a pretext that these sources were "Marxist apologist".
  3. To answer if they consider themselves a novice or experienced editor. This answer is important, because, if they believe they've already became an experienced editors, they are supposed to be responsible for violations of civility norms on WP pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus yet again chooses to label me as 'pro-terrorist'. I consider this a baseless gross personal attack, and ask him to withdraw this immediately. Should he not do so, I intend to seek Wikipedia arbitration over the issue.AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Note:AndyTheGrump has been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but per WP:LEGAL the statement that someone makes "a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;"[2] is a perceived legal threat, and even much more serious one, because propaganda of terrorism, by contrast to libel, is a felony. In connection to that, taking into account that both Andy and Justus can be both considered as new editors, I request Access Denied to re-consider their decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not an admin; I was only commenting. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I would not consider the comment you just quoted a legal threat. If they had said "I'm going to report you to law enforcement for spreading terrorist propaganda, maybe, but I see no real accusation of terrorist propaganda, let alone a threat of reporting it. Ks0stm (TCG) 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Repeated accusations in propaganda of terrorism are perceived legal threat per WP:LEGAL--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Justus Maximus comment, "...they have chosen to resort to illegitimate and unacceptable tactics such as making unsubstantiated, false, and misleading statements in order to promote a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda...." is totally unacceptable and he should be blocked for incivility. Otherwise, his comments are long and rambling, and he does not clearly point out what his dispute is other than a content dispute. TFD (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, "strakh" means a "state of fear" or just fear in general, though for the purposes of Marx and Lenin, it is quite clear that they were speaking and advocating a form of terrorism. In this, the original poster is correct. I just wanted to point that out. SilverserenC 17:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Though, Justus, what Paul meant from this is that your quote “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [such as Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence” doesn't even have the word terror in it anywhere. And Snowded asked for you to be involved in the talk here. Other than those two edits, you have not been involved in directly editing the article, though I notice there is an expansive amount of discussion on the talk page. Is there really anything that has to do with ANI here? SilverserenC 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone tell User:Paul Siebert that forum shopping is frowned upon, he has posted here on this thread the Justus is making perceived legal threats (I`m guessing in the hope of getting the guy blocked) But he has also posted the same thing Here thinking Access Denied was an admin and he posted the same again Here on Toddst1 talk page. This strikes me as someone shopping around looking for the right result and Paul ought to be told to quit it mark (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that, from what i've seen from the talk page of the article in question, all three, Justus Maximus, Paul Siebert, and AndyTheGrump, have all been editing in a manner that expresses POV editing and/or possessiveness of the article. In terms of this and what Mark has shown above, I believe something definitely needs to be done in terms of these three users together, as they have all exibited editing that is frowned upon or not allowed on Wikipedia. SilverserenC 18:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: "I`m guessing in the hope of getting the guy blocked". Had I wanted him to get blocked, I would be able to report him many times, because his behaviour is highly insulting and violates many WP rules. Regarding possessiveness, I admit that the talk page is a mess and that it is hard for a newcomer to follow the course of the discussion, however, before throwing accusations in "possessiveness", one has to read the discussion in full. I proposed to discuss a way to reconcile what Justus' and my sources say, whereas he simply ignored my arguments calling my sources "Marxist apologist". My proposal to edit a dubious section on the talk page and to re-insert it into the article after a consensus is achieved, a tactics that worked fine for, e.g. WWII article, was simply ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean the section were you were Bold and removed it, then yourself, Igny and snowed Snowed edit warred to keep it out? With all three of you hitting 3r along with a couple of ip`s which lead to the article being locked out? mark (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I mean the section which I temporarily moved to the talk page section to re-write and re-introduce into the article. Since this section contained obvious nonsense, it would be incorrect to let it to stay in the article during possibly endless dispute. In addition, I proposed some concrete way to reconcile both points of view and make it neutral. All of that has been ignored by the editors belonging to another party.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
My 2¢: that page is a mess. Large sections of it use the rhetorical style of FOX news pundits (illegitimate associations between unrelated ideas designed to promote a particular anti-communist viewpoint - effectively a form of right-wing Mad Libs), much of it is aimed at attacking Marxist theory by leveraging revolutionary practices, and the general behavior of all involved parties is (shall I say politely) less than optimal. If the page weren't locked I'd simply go after it with garden shears and a trowel; right now I'm just hoping that we can settle the issues with some straw polls. if you all want to go and drop your votes on the straw polls I opened, and if we can get a reasonable consensus that way, it might just put a stop (either way) to some of the shenanigans. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is a promising new editor who we would like to keep—funnily enough I was just admiring an edit of his (this one), which turned up on my watchlist. His "legal threat" was so vague as to be meaningless; plus he's a newbie, presumably not familiar with the labyrinthine ways of Wikipedia. I think it's appallingly bitey to immediately block him indefinitely for saying "I am aware that Wikipedia policy is to discourage recourse to legal measures, but given the grossly offensive nature of this statement, I see that I have little choice." If *I* said that, it would be appropriate to block me, but a newbie? Come on, what's wrong with having a word with him and explaining that talk about legal measures isn't merely discouraged on Wikipedia. Unless there is general objection, I'm going to unblock him in a while, and advise him to withdraw the offending statement. Toddst1, I'm aware that you have already advised him what to do, but I don't think starting with an indefinite block is a good way to get people to listen receptively. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

  • Please give your opinion below about my intention to unblock:
An undertaking to retract the legal threat is all that is required for a legal threat block to be lifted. I don't think that consensus is required, since it says that in WP:LEGAL. Get the undertaking first, then press the button. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, obviously, this legal threat was just an inadequate response of a newbie on continuous insults and perceived legal threats from Justus Maximus' side (repeated accusation in such a crime as propaganda of terrorism are the perceived legal threat). Obviously, the Andy's response was highly emotional, however, taking into account that both these editors are novices, and taking into account that Justus Maximus has been warned many time about his unacceptable behaviour, this reaction is understandable (although not excusable). In addition, we all are partially guilty in that, because we where too tolerant to a newbie Justus Maximus. I do not understand why another newbie has to suffer from that our mistake. In my opinion, the block can be lifted immediately after Andy will agree to retract this threat.
Secondly, I propose not to forget that this issue has only tangential relation to this thread, which has been initiated by Justus Maximus and it is de facto a renewal of this previous thread. Therefore, I propose to return to this topic, especially, taking into account that the norms of acceptable behaviour have been explained to Justus Maximus now, and the experienced editor who initially voluntarily decided to coach him/her through a collaborative approach by that moment gave up and does not see any value in continuation of a dialogue with him[3]--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll leave Andy blocked for now, since he rather dances around a really unequivocal withdrawal of the offending statement.[4] I can't blame him for being a grumpy Grump just now, though, and I hope people are watching his page and are prepared to unblock if/when he does withdraw it properly, for instance in line with Toddst1's crisp post. It's late in my timezone, so I won't be watching. But as I said, it would be nice to keep this editor. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
I think you should unblock. This is a good new editor and even experienced editors would be driven to distraction by the situation on that talk page. --Snowded TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Andy should now be unblocked, as he has withdrawn his threat of legal action. Ks0stm (TCG) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for handling that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Return to Justus Maximus[edit]

Shall we return to User:Justus Maximus and that wall of text again.He's still (as in last week's ANI) turning what is basically a dispute about the interpretation placed on historical events by later scholars, into what seems to be a personal crusade to expose Marx and Lenin as Communist terrorists. Justus must somehow be persuaded that people are allowed to disagree with him, and further that he must not accuse the people who disagree with him of being closet Marxist terrorists. Snowded has been very patient, but I don't think he's got anywhere, Andy has been blocked after an unwise remark about legal action, and is waiting to see what we do. Paul Seibert is I believe correct that in the US at least, advocating or publicising terrorism is a criminal offence, so JM's unreasonable accusation of Andy goes beyond your average ad hominem. I don't see him warned for it, and I think a forceful warning from someone who can follow up an 'if you do this again you will be blocked' threat is the very minimum that must be done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to say that accusing someone of being a terrorism advocate warrants a warning plus a short block, but given the time since the comment the block would end up being not so much preventative as punitive. So, I agree that a "final warning" of sorts where any further personal attacks or general incivility warrant a good 2-3 day block, especially if they are along the lines of accusing people of terrorism related things. I'll deliver a templated final warning, but anyone else should feel free to expand on it (or replace it) with their own composition. Ks0stm (TCG) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Second Elen and Ks0stm on forceful warning. Accusing other editors of criminal activity is not acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps [5] from one of those already in this conversation is germane, using the clearly problematic assertion "Firstly, before we continue I expect you to retract your libellous statements and legal threats. Are you going to do that?" on 17 October. As you note, accusing others of criminal activity is not acceptable, and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? Collect (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh...that's one of those cases where I choose to solidly assume good faith in his intent and assume low clue in his word choice. I'd go for advising a little less strong word choice/rhetoric with that comment. Ks0stm (TCG) 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
When I posted about this issue I noted that, since Justus Maximus is a newbie, the immediate sanctions against him are premature. I believed -Snowded TALK's voluntary mentorship would resolve the situation. However, our tolerance towards this newbie resulted in a block of another newbie (Andy), who faced the situation which, according to his limited WP experience, seemed unresolvable by him, and, as a result, resorted to legal threats.
However, the issue is not only in accusations in criminal activity. Justus Maximus seems to deeply misunderstand the policy: he believes that based solely on his vision of the subject he can accept of reject sources, which he arbitrarily calls "reliable" or "apologist"; he believes that based on the sources available for him he can reject what other sources say; he does not understand that commenting on a contributor is not acceptable; he does not understand that drawing own conclusion based on few quotes from historical documents taken out of historical contest is absolutely incorrect, etc. Someone, who is not considered by him as a personification of the devil (in other words, not I) should explain that to him. Any help is appreciated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps JM would voluntarily go through a set of lessons (Mono's program comes to mind, but I believe it is still under construction, so perhaps one similar to it) with the objective of teaching him such core policies as Reliable Sources, No Original Research, No Personal Attacks, etc, to the point where he could explain what the fundamental meaning of these core policies are? At any rate, for the time being, he should be kept on a very short leash regarding personal attacks and civility (in line with the warning I posted on his talk page). Ks0stm (TCG) 01:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It would really be very helpful if a few other editors would explain OR and SYNTH to Justus, he either does not understand or is not listening. --Snowded TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd do that (I'm usually good at such explanations) except I don't think it would have any effect at this point in time. JM is smart enough to be very cagey intellectually and determined enough in his viewpoints that he is unlikely to willingly back down. Honestly, I think the best approach would be to warn him for disruptive editing, and if he keeps it up give him short block to get his attention. he needs to have a reason to settle down and listen, because he's (obviously) having a lot of fun spinning out arguments to support his position at the moment. --Ludwigs2 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
With regret I think you are right, it will take a block to get him to listen --Snowded TALK 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think some of the above comments do appear to confirm rather than negate the impression that there is a bias here.
In particular, what the comments appear to ignore is:
(1) that AndyTheGrump engaged in personal attacks on me long before I even addressed any of the editors involved in the discussion.
(2) that Paul Siebert has been employing false statements as a pretext to exclude relevant material from the article and/or discussion.
(3) that editors like Paul Siebert are habitually permitted to use original research in their arguments whereas I am being attacked on the rare occasions I happen to do so (and only when requested by other editors to explain why I believe something to be the case).
(4) that at no point has it been explained how personal attacks by editors such as AndyTheGrump differ/are less offensive than mine.
Until such time as issues like the above have been objectively addressed I cannot but regard such comments as a continuation of personal attacks on me started by AndyTheGrump Justus Maximus (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, if your statements like those regarding the word strakh, Lenin's endorsement of terror, and the Bolshevik abolition of the death-penalty are not intentionally fraudulent, then why won't you admit that they are false and retract them? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Incivility and original research are wrong no matter who does it. But it is no excuse for more incivility and more original research. You have certainly crossed the line with serious accusations against other editors and lengthy discourses at Talk:Communist terrorism. It appears you are unwilling to follow the policies that WP imposes. TFD (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It is evident from Justus Maximus's last statement that he has no intention of apologising for his grossly offensive personal comments, but instead chooses to continue his misrepresentations and insinuations. I am therefore going to seek a solution through the relevant Wikipedia channels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talkcontribs) 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear AndyTheGrump, of course I am prepared to apologize for any of my remarks (1) should it be established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments" and (2) if you retract, and apologize for, your own personal attacks that, after all, were made first, logically and chronologically speaking.
As a sign of good will, I hereby give you a chance to do so by explaining why you alleged that I had "distorted the meaning" of the Engels quote.
Justus Maximus (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Incivility and original research are wrong no matter who does it
Then please apply that principle impartially to all.Justus Maximus (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Justus Maximus, can you please provide a link to the supposed 'personal attack' of mine that was "first, logically and chronologically speaking". At that point, we can at least see what I said, and what preceded it.
As for "grossly offensive personal comments", if you are unable to accept that calling someone 'pro-terrorist' is grossly offensive, I can only conclude that you have a strange concept of what the words 'grossly offensive' mean. As has been pointed out several times already, it could reasonably be interpreted as implying illegality on my part. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Which 'Engels quote', JM?
Justus Maximus seems to have taken the opportunity here to repeat allegations about me, without providing any evidence. Can I ask how long I'm expected to wait for his response before citing it as further evidence of his non-compliance with Wikipedia standards? To ensure he has seen this, I'll post a further notification on his talk page, but I see no reason to wait indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Justus Maximus, can you please provide a link to the supposed 'personal attack' of mine that was "first, logically and chronologically speaking". At that point, we can at least see what I said, and what preceded it
AndyTheGrump, I meant of course the Marx quote. You ought to know exactly which personal attack I'm referring to unless you didn't read my post, above. If that is the case, please read it first.
Meanwhile, I repeat your statement below:
"the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis arguably distorted the intended meaning" - AndyTheGrump, talk page, 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC). Surely, you recall your own statements don't you?
The way I see it the facts of the matter are as follows:
(1) You claimed on the talk page that Marx’s article containing the statement on revolutionary terrorism (“The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna”) was obscure and you had not been aware of its existence. However, as I pointed out, it couldn’t have been obscure to students of Marx given that it was quoted by Marxists such as Kautsky. Moreover, Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism is a Marxist classic. It follows that (a) as a historian specializing in Marxism you ought to have known where the quote was from, (b) as an editor participating in a discussion on Communist terrorism, you ought to have been familiar with a Marxist work on Terrorism and Communism, and as neither (a) nor (b) appears to be the case, (c) this raises very serious and legitimate doubts about your competence to participate in such a discussion.
(2) By claiming to know what Marx’s intended meaning was, you indulged in original research and took a pro-Marxist stand.
(3) The fact is that Marx is telling a lie in that article. The truth of the matter is that the number of demonstrators killed by the National Guard was between 6 and 18. Here’s what actually happened:
“When the National Guard tried to disperse the protesters, there were clashes, which escalated on 23 August. The Academic Legion, though refusing to join in the repression, was reluctant to side with the insurgents and stood back, a mere spectator to what followed. Lacking the support of the very people whom they regarded as their leaders, the workers stood no chance. Demonstrators were beaten with the flats of sabres, bayoneted and shot. Between 6 and 18 workers were killed, and between 36 and 152 seriously wounded (depending upon whether one believes government or radical counts). When the fighting was over, women from the more prosperous quarters of the city garlanded the National Guards’ bayonets with flowers … The Democratic Club shouted down Marx, who was then visiting Vienna, when he tried to argue that the violence was a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For Engels, 23 August was the moment when the middle class abandoned the cause of the people: ‘thus the unity and strength of the revolutionary force was broken; the class-struggle had come in Vienna, too, to a bloody outbreak, and the counter-revolutionary camarillasaw the day approaching on which it might strike its grand blow’. But Marx found that it was not only the middle class who were deserting the revolution; there was little sympathy for his ideas even when he addressed workers’ meetings. On 7 September, he left Vienna, grumbling at the stubborn refusal of the workers to see that they should be waging a class war against the bourgeoisie” (Mike Rapport, 1848:Year of Revolution, London: Little, Brown, 2008, pp. 230-1).
It follows from the above that Marx’s use of rhetorical flourishes like “massacres” and “cannibalism” was intended to deceive the readers and incite them to armed insurrection on false pretences. It is beyond dispute that the primary intention of the article was to incite to armed insurrection, as correctly observed by the authorities who closed down Marx’s paper on that very ground.
(4) The quote as initially provided by me illustrated Marx’s endorsement of terrorism and was relevant to the section “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders.” By contrast, the “intended meaning” as implied by your statement was irrelevant. It follows that your assertion “the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis, arguably distorted the intended meaning” is uncalled for and lends itself to being interpreted as deliberately offensive.
As already stated, I am prepared to retract any remarks of mine (1) should it be established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments" and (2) if you retract, and apologize for, your own personal attacks that, after all, were made first, logically and chronologically speaking.
So, if you are indeed interested in peaceful cooperation between editors, all you need to do is retract and apologize for your offensive remarks. It's very simple. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hold up a second. JM, are you seriously saying that the "Marx quote" is the bit where it was stated your edit "arguably distorted" the meaning of the source? That's not a personal attack, by any stretch of the imagination. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks that way, HandThatFeeds. It's worth noting that the (half)quote we were discussing was in the article even before JM got involved. He (usefully) provided a link to the original source, and correctly added the ellipsis to indicate it was part of a longer sentence. I provided the remainder of the sentence (though there are two different English translations available, and I think I used the wrong one - as I've noted on the article talk page). It is also worth noting that at the time I made this revision, JM made no suggestion that I was being offensive. This attempt of mine to make a perfectly reasonable edit to a contentious quote to provide some context has only later been identified by JM as part of a Marxist plot to censor him. He initially seems to have been unaware of the standards which apply to Wikipedia, and took any attempts to persuade him to conform to them as 'suppression' of his preferred sources. Almost from the start he was accusing others of 'falsehoods'. He has since argued that he doesn't agree with the need for reliable sources if they contradict his 'ethics'. He has chosen yet again to make a personal attack on me on the most ridiculous grounds. He writes that 'as a historian specializing in Marxism you ought to have known where the quote was from' which is surely an indication of his complete detachment from reality: I'm not a historian, and have never claimed to be. Neither have I actually claimed to be a 'specialist in Marxism'. I had merely earlier pointed out that the Marx quote wasn't in any of Marx's major works (it isn't), which is why I'd asked where it was from. Justus Maximus chooses to insinuate that I knew where it was from all along, and then uses this bogus assumption to 'prove' his ludicrous conspiracy theories. The man is clearly incapable of logical thought on issues he has any emotional involvement with, and thus cannot be anything but a liability as a Wikipedia editor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The persistent refusal by Justus Maximus to conform to Wikipedia standards[edit]

As will be evident from the earlier section started by Justus Maximus here, he has consistently refused to conform to Wikipedia rules regarding civility. In particular, he has repeatedly described another contributor and myself as 'pro-terrorist' - a grossly offensive personal attack. He has also repeatedly been asked to withdraw such statements, and refused. He shows no interest in adhering to other Wikipedia norms either, and has instead argued that his 'ethics' override the need for reliable sources. On his own talk page he suggested that a "Marxist apologist brigade...controls the whole Wikipedia project" here, which seems a clear indication of his attitude towards Wikipedia, and should in itself be sufficient grounds for concluding that he can contribute nothing useful. I therefore suggest that he be banned from further editing until he withdraws his grossly offensive personal attacks and gives an assurance that he will conform to Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, please see my response above. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Justus, you are just wasting everyone's time, most of all your own. Wikipedia is not the forum to present original ideas and interpretations. I suggest you voluntarily refrain from editing anything to do with communism for some time. Work on other articles and learn how cooperation on Wikipedia works. I you do not do this voluntarily I will have to propose, that a topic ban be placed on you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, I think there is a severe WP:COMPETENCE problem. Apart from the above discussion Justus appears to be editing an old version of AN/I to respond to threads, but does not appear to understand what he is doing? I've tried explaining as best I can but he is having trouble with understanding what I mean by an "old version of the page". Anyone else that can weigh in with help would be appreciated. Talk page thread --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that Justus Maximus has still refused to withdraw his grossly offensive personal remarks about me, in spite of having quite sufficient time to do so, and in spite of making several edits to Wikipedia since my last comments in this section. He has instead insisted that I withdraw 'personal remarks' about him first, though the only example he has (eventually and reluctantly) given any real reference too was clearly not offensive at all (he didn't seem to think so at the time either, see my last posting above). I will not deny that I did indeed later make some personal remarks, but any inspection of the relevant talk page will show that this was only after he had began his malevolent insinuations and aspersions about other editors, and nothing I said can be remotely comparable to his characterisation of another editor and myself as 'pro-terrorist'. He further insists that it be 'established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments"', entirely reversing any reasonable burden of proof. I have shown a great deal of patience since my perhaps hasty reaction the last time he made this slur, but am now in the position where it appears that no sanctions are to be taken against him, and his remarks remain in Wikipedia files. As a new contributor, I could probably cease participating in the project, and walk away with no great harm done (his characterisation is so ludicrous as to be hardly credible), but I hardly think it is conducive to my long-term participation in Wikipedia to have such offensive comments available for all to see, and for Justus Maximus to continue unsanctioned. I don't intend this to seem an ultimatum, but I do have to ask whether other editors would tolerate the same situation, or instead withdraw from the project? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, I note that it is not for you to decide which of your remarks are offensive to others, but for those affected by your remaks to do so. Your assertion to the effect that my quote "distorted the intended meaning" was offensive to me as it wrongly implied that it had been my intention to distort something. I did not immediately react to your offensive remark precisely because I wanted to avoid conflict and was hoping that it had been a mistake on your part. Your subsequent behavior demonstrated that it had not been a mistake, in particular when you exhibited a clear pro-Marxist or what I called "apologist" bias. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
No, you don't get to decide what is offensive. Disagreeing with a position you have advanced is NEVER offensive, no matter how controversial. The way it is expressed may or may not be offensive - I have not see Andy say anything that constitutes a personal attack under the WP:NPA policy. I have not seen you being rude, but I have seen you making extremely personal comments about people's political beliefs, to the extent that you appear to be accusing them of something that might be a criminal act in the US. Ascribing offensive motives to people who oppose you is a breach of Wikipedia policy, in your case what you have said is a personal attack. You should not do so again, and should redact the instances where you are accusing people of supporting terrorism, otherwise you do risk being blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Can I point out at this point that my comment about how the truncation of the quotation from Marx could arguably have distorted its meaning need not even have been directed at Justus Maximus, but at those others who had previously truncated it. Had he bothered to raise his concerns, I would gladly have clarified this. In any case, I suspect this particular supposedly 'offensive' comment is only being raised by JM in order to justify his claim that I was 'offensive' first. I'd argue that even if I had been (I wasn't, at least by intent), this would in no way justify his gross and continuing mischaracterisations of my attitude towards terrorism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you might consider that picking at a sore does not generally make it heal? Meanwhile, you assert on the article talk page that the IRA became peace-loving when it became Marxist, and that the "terrorists" were "right wing" which shows something, I suppose. [6] shows a great deal of the problem is that some editos "know" when all they are supposed to do is simply use whatever the sources say, and no more. Collect (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Collect, can you explain exactly how this is relevant to the subject of this section? And by the way, you completely misrepresent what I wrote, as anyone can see from the link you gave. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
you appear to be accusing them of something that might be a criminal act in the US
Absolutely not. My remarks such as "apologists for Marxist terrorism" (14:19 17 October UTC); "attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism" (13:09 17 October UTC); "attempt to justify Marxist terrorism" (08:45 18 October UTC) refer in all cases and without exception to Marxist terrorism in the historical context of the section under discussion, as ought to be obvious from the context. In other words, I was accusing the above editors of supporting, justifying, whitewashing, etc. terrorism as advocated/deployed by Marxists in the past. It follows that my remarks are well beyond the jurisdiction of the US or any other country I know of and cannot be construed as "accusation of a criminal act" by any stretch of the imagination or the law. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You've missed out the one where you accused me (and another) of promoting "a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda" at the start of this section. How can someone have an 'agenda' which promotes terrorism in the past? You're only making things worse for yourself, JM. I'd suggest for your own good you should either apologise ant retract your comments, or go edit Conservapedia instead - someone else can then remove your mischaracterisations, and we can all get back to doing something useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
How can someone have an 'agenda' which promotes terrorism in the past?
He can perfectly well do so in the sense of "justify the use of terrorism by Marxists in the past", as already explained and as evident from the context. You appeared to deny the fact that Marx/Engels advocated terrorism, Paul Siebert appeared to justify the terrorist activities of Lenin, etc. All these issues were in the past. It isn't my fault that you refuse to understand. It seems to me it is you who are wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous allegations of "libel", etc. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
He's still (as in last week's ANI) turning what is basically a dispute about the interpretation placed on historical events by later scholars, into what seems to be a personal crusade to expose Marx and Lenin as Communist terrorists
Not quite, I'm afraid. The dispute was primarily about Marx and Lenin's endorsement/practice of terrorism on the evidence of their own writings and other sources. I have in the meantime provided sources such as leading Socialists/Marxists confirming this to be the case. If it seemed like a "crusade", this is due entirely to certain editors' persistent and unreasonable refusal to acknowledge the sources. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Justus Maximus, how exactly do you reconcile your last statement about your suggestion that I was promoting "a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda" with what you wrote earlier: "I note that it is not for you to decide which of your remarks are offensive to others, but for those affected by your rema[r]ks to do so".
As for me denying "the fact that Marx/Engels advocated terrorism". You have yet to provide WP:RS which adequately shows that this is "fact" rather than opinion, though once again this is off-topic, since the issue here is not whether Marx or Engels advocated terrorism, but whether your ludicrous assertion that I am 'pro-terrorist' is permissible on Wikipedia. Please stick to the topic under debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You are playing your usual games again, aren't you? I have never disputed anyone's right to feel offended. My dispute was solely in respect of the suggestion that my remarks fell under US or any other legislation I am aware of. My remarks regarding Marx and Lenin's endorsement/practice of terrorism were intended to illustrate the historical context of the debate which has no bearing on present terrorism or legislation concerning it. So, sorry, but it is difficult to see how your campaign can succeed if you can't even get your facts straight. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus has just posted a request that I "stop threatening" him here. Since it is evident I made no threat there, can I ask that this is also taken into account when considering action against him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus appears to be editing an old version of AN/I to respond to threads, but does not appear to understand what he is doing
Objection: I edited an old version of the page inadvertently, having followed a link to an old version posted by Snowded on my talk page. Being unfamiliar with ANI/Wikipedia procedures I thought that was where I was meant to respond. It does not appear that the problem is recurring now that I see I was following the wrong link. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, enough[edit]

This page is for requesting administrator action, not for endless bickering. There is one issue here - Justus Maximus, at one point you said that your opponents (who were at that time Andy and Paul Seibert) were promoting "a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda". That statement is out of order, and you have been asked by both parties to withdraw it. You will also find a number of contributors on this thread saying that you should withdraw it. You have stated that what you meant was an agenda in terms of what interpretation of history they support, which statement would not be objectionable under Wikipedia rules. Are you prepared to refactor any statement which Paul or Andy believe is saying that they promote terrorism, so it is either struck or else it is clear that it refers to historical interpretation not to modern activism. If you will do that, then no furhter administrator intervention is required. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the goddess Sophia in her incarnation of (H)elen has finally spoken! I was beginning to fear we were going to be subjected to the childish pranks of certain editors till the end of time. Of course I am prepared to refactor some of my statements should this be thought necessary. However, my concerns regarding the false statements made by Paul Siebert (see above) do remain an issue. We can't have an objective and constructive discussion on an article if editors resort to false statements in support of their personal opinion and original research. Could you please advise me as how/where these issues may be addressed? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, the section title "The persistent refusal by Justus Maximus to conform to Wikipedia standards" is inaccurate and (deliberately?) misleading. I have never refused any such thing. I'm simply asking that the same standards be applied impartially to all, including to editors like Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: Justus Maximus did remove "pro-terrorist" above: [7] Kansan (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Correct. Let it be noted that I have removed the phrase "pro-terrorist" from the ANI section "AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert". I couldn't find it anywhere on the talk page though. I will take another look later and promise to remove/refactor it by tomorrow. I hope my concerns regarding Paul Siebert's statements can now finally be addressed so we can continue the discussion in an objective and amicable manner. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have indef blocked Justus Maximus until such time as they give a straight forward answer, without attempting to make it conditional upon other related matters. Any admin is free to undo my action upon being satisfied that JM has fully complied with Elen of the Roads request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    fine with me; ... drawn here by an amusing edit summary ;) Jack Merridew 20:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Bravo on successfully biting a newbie. Did not Kansan just note above that Justus Maximus in fact removed the offending phrase? Did not Justus Maximus just state above "Let it be noted that I have removed the phrase "pro-terrorist" from the ANI section". Sheesh, did't you people read the thread before acting? --Martin (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
"[D]id't you people read the thread before acting"? He made the allegation repeatedly, as he himself notes (he even provides timestamps for several). He removed one instance, while still equivocating and trying to use other issues to delay things. This raises an interesting question. With him blocked, would it not now be correct to remove the offending phrases. I don't think it would be appropriate to do this myself, but I'm not happy to leave them indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
How about you AGF? Justus Maximus stated "I couldn't find it anywhere on the talk page though. I will take another look later and promise to remove/refactor it by tomorrow.", people have to sleep you know. I had trouble finding that single instance on the ANI page and you haven't posted diffs of any other, as far as I can tell. --Martin (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Bravo on successfully biting a newbie" The fact that JM is a newbie has already been taken into account. I was absolutely satisfied when, in a response on my ANI post, a neutral editor agreed to supervise JM. You also probably noticed that, despite I was one of two primary objects of JM attacks, I tried to abstain from this discussion as much as possible, except the case when another newbie has been blocked as a result of our too tolerant attitude towards JM.
However, in my opinion, JM made absolutely wrong conclusions from our acts of good will towards him, namely, he decided that his behaviour, with exception of one phrase, is quite acceptable. However, it is not. He repeatedly comments on other contributors, he claims that I (as well as some other editors) have an agenda (is it acceptable, in your opinion?), that I (as well as some other editors) am an apologist of some sort (is it acceptable?). And, more importantly, he does not understand the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, namely, neutrality: the fact that he found few sources that support his POV seems to him to be sufficient to reject the well sourced arguments of others. As a result, his voluntary supervisor gave up and now he sees no use in collaboration with him. Another neutral editor is currently trying to explain quite obvious things to him on the Communist terrorism talk page, without any signs of success so far.
In summary, I support this block and I would like to see real signs of good faith from JM's side before the block will be lifted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
PS. I am ready to explain to him his major mistakes if he will express a desire to listen. He may leave a post on his talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, Ellen of Roads did state "You have stated that what you meant was an agenda in terms of what interpretation of history they support, which statement would not be objectionable under Wikipedia rules". She then requests "Are you prepared to refactor any statement which Paul or Andy believe is saying that they promote terrorism, so it is either struck or else it is clear that it refers to historical interpretation not to modern activism.". To be fair it seems that Justus Maximus did in fact comply with Elen's request in good faith, as Kansan posted evidence shows[8]. Justus Maximus even goes further and states "I couldn't find it anywhere on the talk page though. I will take another look later and promise to remove/refactor it by tomorrow."[9]. Having complied with Elen's request in good faith, I don't understand why Justus Maximus was blocked in the first place. --Martin (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
In other words, everything else is acceptable behaviour in your opinion?
Re "remove/refactor". In actuality, the situation cannot be resolved so easily. JM openly and repeatedly claimed that Marxism = terrorism. Therefore any his claim that someone is pro-Marxist (Marxist apologist) sounds as implicit or even explicit accusation in promoting terrorist views. I expect him either to provide a solid evidence that Marxism is terrorism (which would be impossible, because it is a well recognised scientific doctrine), or to take an obligation in future to refrain from any personal comment on anybody in a context of Marxism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Before taking this rather pointless debate any further, can I suggest that people take a look at JMs talk page, where he writes that 'as confirmed by several editors there I have complied with Elen of the Road's request to remove or refactor the phrase "pro-terrorist" from the relevant text'. He seems to be under the misapprehension that it was only the final instance of his repeated mischaracterisation that was at issue, and thus shows no understanding of what the problem was in the first place. As has already been pointed out by numerous contributors, he shows a complete lack of awareness of what Wikipedia standards are. He has repeatedly disrupted the talk page on a controversial issue with WP:SYN and personal attacks. He has shown no evidence of accepting that WP:RS is what matters in this context, rather than his 'ethics' as he earlier argued. As his talk page shows, he is still firmly convinced that Wikipedia is in the grip of a Marxist cabal. Given all this, unblocking can only result in further disruption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The basis of LessHeard vanU's block is "I have indef blocked JM until as such time as the comply fully with Elen of the Roads request". However Justus Maximus had already complied with Elen's request to remove references to "promoting terrorism". Elen stated that mention of an agenda in terms what interpretation of history you support as not objectionable under Wikipedia rules. I think Justus Maximus took Elen's word in good faith and refactored the comment as requested and stated that he would check for other instances of the comment and remove them the following day, presumably after a night's sleep. After Elen herself stated that the primary issue is the reference to "promoting terrorism" should be removed and once removed no furhter administrator intervention is required, it is unfair to claim Justus Maximus did not go far enough when in fact he did precisely what Elen asked him to do. The remainder of the issues is related to content and should be dealt with elsewhere, I don't think whipping up hysteria and wiki-drama is a legitimate method of dealing with some of the issues of content that both sides validly raise. --Martin (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no hysteria or wiki-drama. A community was tolerant towards JM for long time, and even now we all are ready to collaborate with him as soon as he will agree to observe normal behavioural standards (e.g. to avoid constant repetitions of the mantra about others' "false statements", etc). However, as you can see from his recent posts on his talk page (where he, for instance blames another editor in his own sins), he is not ready to do that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:Codf1977[edit]

Resolved: Harassment appears to be from the other direction, and a 48hr block has been implemented to emphasize this point (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite the negative result from the following SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codf1977 I still strongly believe that User:VHarris44 is controlled by User:Codf1977 and that they are merely operating from another PC and location.

Codf1977 claims on their talk page to be retired and uncontactable via their wikipedia account but, the very next day after my difficulties with VHarris44 and the opening of the SPI they have immediately re-emerged and posted a lengthy exposition of their view of my dealings with VHarris44 here: User talk:TFOWR#Rangoon11's filing of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codf1977 and his other actions yesterday.

Leaving aside the fact that it appears highly inappropriate for Codf1977 to post a message of complaint of that nature about me on another user's talk page without informing me, I believe that Codf1977's immediate re-appearance and immediate highly detailed account of their view of VHarris44's behaviour shows that Codf1977 and VHarris44 are one and the same. This may not be provable from IP searches, but in my opinion it is clear from the editing behaviour of Codf1977 prior to 'retirement' and VHarris44 yesterday, and from the fact that VHarris44 was aware of information about my university which had been deleted from my talk page prior to their even opening their account (but which Codf1977 was fully aware of).

Prior to their 'retirement' Codf1977 was almost obsessively trying to attack pages that I had either created or edited e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#UCL Articles created or edited by Rangoon11. I felt very strongly that they were trying to harrass me, although I was not able to convince others of this. In my view this behaviour is now continuing via other means. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping of the first order, you have made allegations that I have harassed you before here at ANI, on your talk page and on Shell Kinney talk page here and on each and every time it came back as no.
Your accusation that I am editing from another computer is groundless and false as I have made clear on the SPI you filed yesterday, the reason for the post to TFOWR was, because I had concerns that you gamed the system, fanning no knowledge of SPI when you yourself had been through the process yourself not three weeks ago. I wanted a second pair of eyes to look over what went on. Codf1977 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Rangoon11 is clearly forum-shopping of the highest order. You've pissed off enough people on Wikipedia that there could in fact be many people who would create a new account and follow you around. Blaming one specific user again and again who has been technically declared to not be related is harassment on your own part. The history of your userpage is available to everyone - getting university info might just be easy. You're possibly correct that this new, random userid is harassing you and that you might need to follow up with that, but your accusations that it's a specific user again and again is not going to end well for you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Follow-up: I have blocked Rangoon11 for 48hrs for clear harassment. Going to any possible lengths to try to implement a block due to a clearly mistaken belief (considering technical SPI) requires action. Enough is enough, and considering the block log of Rangoon for NLT, it's about time for this action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I would comment that I voiced a similar suspicion as to a connection between the VHarris44 account and the suddenly reactivated "retired" account Codf1977 at my talkpage following comments from another admin. I understand that there is history between Rangoon11 and Codf1977, and suggest that that makes R11 more sensitive to the possibilities of sock puppetry - and, of course, the fact that CU is not magic pixie dust. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge the pixie dust. That said, when SPI says no technical way, and there's no other valid method of linking the accounts, continue to say "nevertheless, stop the harassment from person X because I'm just magically sure it's him" is reproachful. It is in itself harassing. Colonel Warden has given him great advice to follow after this 48hr block is up. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have no way to "prove" Vharris44 is not me. I will repeat again for what it is worth, that I have only ever edited WP from this account (plus the odd IP edit by accident when not logged in). I freely admit to checking my Talk page every few days or so, The reason for responding this morning was out of anger that despite the fact I had taken the decision (in part as a result of Rangoon11) not to edit WP any more but to go off and do something else for a while, Rangoon11 was appearing to be intent on trying to rubbish my reputation. Since my areas of interest are reasonably narrow any attempt at an alternate account would be spotted a mile off so my reputation here now and in the future (if I ever decided to resume editing) is based on my behaviour and logs. The reason for the post to TFOWR's talk page was after looking at the set of events yesterday I felt that Rangoon11 gamed the system for example here claiming that he was "not sure what to do about it." when he knew about SPI, then waiting for three hours in the hope someone else might open the SPI, before doing it himself. Codf1977 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI needed[edit]

Resolved: MuZemike 17:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody block Grundle's latest IP, (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It appears he has a new range. Grsz11 04:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The following articles were created by sockpuppets of banned user User:Grundle2600, and so need to be deleted:

Aiyana Jones

HD 10180

Into The Universe with Stephen Hawking

Megaleledone setebos

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation

Sack tapping

Spinoloricus sp. nov. (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if they have, most of these feature significant contributions from other editors, so they would be ineligible for speedy deletion under the persona non grata criteria. Several may be eligible for AFD discussions. The first one, for example, seems to be a WP:NOTNEWS issue. If there are articles which have been recently created by Grundle, and feature no significant contributions from editors in good standing, please feel free to list those here. But merely being created by Grundle is not enough justification to throw away the significant work of those that edited the articles after him. --Jayron32 04:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Heh, that IP was Grundle. He does this with all his socks. Goodvac (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Was going to comment the same thing. It was his "witty" response to the above. Grsz11 04:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TSbay spam only account[edit]

Resolved: MuZemike 18:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tsbay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) per their contribs, this is a very slow, but spam only account. They've never done anything in the 2 years they've had an account except repeatedly try to add the same link to the same article. Should be blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done The account has been blocked for spamming. In the future, spam only accounts can also be handled through WP:AIV. --Jayron32 06:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a fresh diff, last time I took something there it was removed for not happening in the last 3 seconds.--Crossmr (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Floyd C. Bayne[edit]

Resolved: MuZemike 17:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Floyd C. Bayne was deleted today per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd C. Bayne, but the article was re-created. Newly created account, User:Libertyactivist, keeps removing the {{db-repost}} template. Help there would be appreciated. Thanks! Location (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The tag said I could remove it if I think it didn't fit the speedy delete criteria. I have done nothing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyactivist (talkcontribs) 06:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted the page. Full protected. The answer if you disagree, is not to engage in disruption. Please see WP:DRV. -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP problems at AFD discussion[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Colegrove is attracting various nasty comments about the subject. They may all be true, but they still violate BLP. I can continue to police them, but I'd rather appreciate it if someone just SNOWed the discussion and protected it. I nominated the article, so obviously I can't do it. I notified both the creator and principle contributor when I nommed the article for deletion, and no word from them since then. Neither is active.--Chaser (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, though not protected unless it's really necessary. Is it? --John (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Some of that smells like socking to me, but ... dunno. *shrug*. --je deckertalk 06:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks John. On reflection, you're right about protecting it.--Chaser (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

user:2nd Alternate user name[edit]

Resolved: indef'd ;) Jack Merridew 07:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

2nd Alternate user name (talk · contribs) needs blocking per Alternate user name (talk · contribs). Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

user is back as (talk · contribs). Need a rangeblock perhaps. → ROUX  08:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
not surprising; one of the custodians will sort this, methinks ; Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done 04:14, 28 October 2010 Zzuuzz (talk | contribs) blocked (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Block evasion) -- DQ (t) (e) 12:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is KBlott (talk · contribs), who has been socking to gain an upper hand in articles pertaining HIV. Rangeblocks are not possible at this time (one has already been blocked, which he has easily found a way around), and he is currently abusing open proxies. –MuZemike 14:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

edit of picture[edit]

Resolved: Commons issue

I am the creator of File:100 1343.JPG, which was uploaded in 2007 as an illustration of the fake railway tickets used by protestors against a rise in fares in the Bristol area by First Great Western, a private railway company, in that year. I was quite new to using pictures in Wikipedia, and I didn't give it a very helpful name.

A couple of weeks ago it was overwritten with a picture of himself and his work by an artist calling himself Marcorelico. This looks to me like an error on his part rather than deliberate vandalism, since he seems to have repeated the upload a number of times. The original file still exists in the file history, but I cannot a way of restoring it. Nor can I notify Marcorelico of the problem, since his username does not seem to exist (not in the English Wikipedia, anyway).

Can someone please restore the picture file? Deipnosophista (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a problem on Commons -- you should ask at commons:Commons:Village pump. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Come now, don't just say "go ask the Commons people." Reversion is a simple matter, as is placing a move request. In any case, I have done that.