Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646

Lisbon lion67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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

They have been notified of this thread.— Dædαlus ^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 (talk • contribs) 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.— Dædαlus ^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.— Dædαlus ^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.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

07:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

128.189.129.43 (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 cornix_talk 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.

Talk

06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert

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 means – revolutionary terrorism.””

To which I provided the following references:

“Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, Vol. V, 1959, pp. 455-7. http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me05/me_05_455.htm; for English translation see http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm”

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 www.marxists.org: [1]);

and

(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 means – revolutionary 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

[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.

[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 ^(T•C•G) 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. Silverseren^C 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? Silverseren^C 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone tell

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. Silverseren^C 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?

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

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 ^(T•C•G) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for handling that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Return to Justus Maximus

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 ^(T•C•G) 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 ^(T•C•G) 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 ^(T•C•G) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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

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

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

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? --
  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. --

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. --

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: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)