Ray Saintonge wrote:
moink wrote:
This is just another example of the loose cannon behaviour that we're getting from some over-zealous sysops. This user did not add the term "world revolution", he only wikified it where it already appeared. That is perfectly within standard Wikipedia practice. If a non-existent article is linked enough times, that is exactly what will make it appear on the list of most wanted pages. At one time that page was a great resource for newbies who didn't know what to write about. Please don't blame this user for not attempting to get along when that failure is on the part of his accusers.
Ec
You're right; I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to blame the blocked user; I was instead trying to point out ways in which these kinds of conflicts might be avoided in future. But I put it wrong. My apologies.
moink
No problem; it's really the sysop that did the blocking that should be giving the apology the new user. It's the second such incident on the mailing list in the last couple days. Sysops should know and behave better.
Ec
A sysop **blocked** a user for wikifying a term, which will perhaps be an article later ?
Wikifying is "vandalism" ??
Was the sysop trying to "limit" the project growth ???
Les Dieux sont tombés sur la tête :-)