I have been graced with the following action: I am convinced it's below the dignity of anyone put in this position, to argue over the understanding of "vandalism" and over Wikipedia's need (or alleged lack of need) of articles on World Revolution and Fall of Communism; and I do not think it is up to me to discuss the interpretation of your blocking policy -- but maybe it would be in your interest to discuss it? Maybe someone who take, or at least took, his or her engagement in Wikipedia somewhat seriously is receiving this mailinglist. I do however question if actions and a policy that are blatantly contrary to how Wikipedia presents itself to the World Wide Web can be in the interest of a serious project. Like after the non-accepted corrections I tried to make April 10th this year, I can't help a resulting impression of this Wikipedia being or becoming more of a playground for ignorant but maybe power-intoxicated systops than a field for serious additions to an open- source encyclopedia.

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

moink wrote: 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 ?