User talk:Levelledout/Archive 2

Final warning
Another revert like this one will get you blocked. I've already warned you above, so you really have no excuse this time. Discuss it at the talk page, don't revert. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again User:Mr. Stradivarius, there is/was obviously still some misunderstanding about this. I thought that what you meant last time was that one edit was not generally considered edit-warring and that the warning was for informational purposes to stop it descending into an edit-war. But OK I get what you are saying. I see that you have also warned QG and in my opinion his revert did constitute edit-warring since it was reverting a revert. It may be worth also noting that the recent edits to the article appear to be in direct violation of advice recently given by an admin stating "Once unprotected, please ensure that you've achieved consensus for any changes you make to the page given how controversial it's been."
 * The point is that this time is the second time you have made such a wholesale revert. Yes, there was a period of full protection in between them, but it was still a second revert doing essentially the same thing as the first one. Slow-burning edit wars are still edit wars, and given the controversial nature of the article I intend to be strict about enforcing the edit-warring policy there. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK well I was trying to follow WP:BRD. I accept that this probably isn't appropriate for this article but the process is already being set into swing by aggressive "bold" changes. I can understand why some editors would not want page protection due to the open editing ethos but we seem to have gone straight to the other end of the scale. Now editors can aggressively add vast amounts of material without prior discussion and it can't be reverted, we have to get consensus merely to have it removed. If you are going to clampdown on large reverts then surely it is also neccesary to clampdown on large edits without prior discussion? Getting consensus to have these edits removed is far more difficult than forcing them through. This is somewhat contrary to WP:NOCONSENSUS and gives a clear advantage to editors who don't respect the consensus process. I get what you are saying User:Mr. Stradivarius, I have no choice but to stop wholsesale reverting, but I would appreciate it if you would please consider these points.Levelledout (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For my part, I was very tempted to block Levelledout right now, Mr. Stradivarius. After conceding here that it wasn't necessary to make such a wholesale revert, you perform the exact same wholesale revert 12 days later. This time after QuackGuru had given a detailed rationale on the talkpage, so WP:CAUTIOUS hardly applies, and it certainly doesn't make the central question of sourcing "irrelevant", as you seem to think. You are editing disruptively on Electronic cigarette. The only reason I'm not blocking you at this time is that Mr S has already warned you. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC).
 * I am literally staggered that you think that WP:CAUTIOUS does not apply. Where exactly did QuackGuru successfully seek consensus before instating the 17k of changes? I would not even say that he provided a detailed rational since most of it focused on personally attacking me for a revert that I made nearly two weeks ago. Large-scale changes should be discussed regardless of sourcing, WP:CAUTIOUS doesn't make exceptions based on sourcing.Levelledout (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'm literally bowled over that you think you needn't engage with QuackGuru's sources and rationale before reverting all the material he has added. It's a real battleground action, and, especially,this post is a battleground post. You offer no factual reason for reverting; apparently you think you don't have to. I suggest you read WP:CAUTIOUS more carefully. It doesn't mention consensus. It does say "If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war." That's what QG did, as far as I can see. You chose to edit war anyway. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC).
 * Yes and it also says "Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page." Given that QuackGuru was told by an admin here on 20 March "Once unprotected, please ensure that you've achieved consensus for any changes you make to the page given how controversial it's been" would you not agree that he should have in fact done this? It's not that I don't consider it necessary to take QG's reasoning into account, it's that I find it difficult to believe that you think that QG gave adequate reasoning to explain 17k of changes when all he actually noted was some changes to the lead, one single word, one single sentence and a couple of other statements. Considering that QuackGuru had been editing the entire article from his sandbox for 10 days, he had ample opportunity to discuss all of the changes he was making on the article talk page. Consider that WP:CAUTIOUS also states "consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and then link to it on the article's talk page so as to facilitate a new discussion".Levelledout (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that QG did in fact link to their sandbox on the article talk page (at least twice) and others have been discussing it on the talk page. I'm not familiar enough with the discussion to say whether there was consensus for all the changes or not, but in this regard QG was indeed following WP:CAUTIOUS. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Adjwilley, QG has inserted large amounts of information into the article from their sandbox on more than one occasion recently. On this last occasion he transferred the entire article to his sandbox on 19 March and edited from there until inserting it into the article here on 30 March. So far as I can tell at no point was anybody informed on the article talk page during this period.Levelledout (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Also worth noting QG refers and links to his sandbox but edits his sanbox (no d), won't engage in discussion of his edits. Doesn't justify them in the slightest. This revert is not something worth warning over and is truly appropriate for wikipedia. Could you point me to an appropriate venue to have a discussion with other admins over the appropriateness of this warning? SPACKlick (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The appropriate venue for that would be WP:AN. In my opinion, a slow-burning edit war is well worth warning over, however. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A few points about your request for arbitration
You use words like "dumping" content in articles (!) and "running" to requests for page protection about QuackGuru's actions. Such loaded words express your emotion, not anything factual, and make you look bad, not the person you're talking about. Note also that it's the protecting admin who is responsible for protecting/unprotecting a page; talking about QG "getting" the page unprotected ("single-handedly", yet) and "getting" the expiry date reduced is just silly. Unless you mean to suggest that QG has a posse of admins in his pocket that blindly do his bidding? Saying that I warned KimDabelsteinPetersen "for simply inserting the wrong type of article tag". is directly misleading. To anybody who doesn't go back and research the issue (I notice you don't provide a direct link to the so-called 'tag' KDP inserted, which would have made it a lot easier), that sounds like it was an actual, pre-existing article tag, merely of the wrong 'type', rather than being (as it was) a selfmade trolling so-called tag. I'm sure the arbs can see these things for themselves; they have eyes. I won't insult their intelligence and/or bloat up the RFAR page by addressing this kind of stuff there. Instead, I'm telling you here on your page that you need to upgrade your discussion practices. Don't you want your discourse on Wikipedia to be respectable and trustworthy? The diffs you offered as examples of "incivility and personal attacks" are ridiculous by the way. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC).
 * And I'm "telling you" Bishonen that I don't agree with you and that nobody else on the whole ArbCom page has said such things. People can also see that you have warned me, KimDabelsteinPetersen and SPACKlick for very minor barely actionable one off events whilst you choose to take no action against QuackGuru who I have clearly demonstrated partakes in far far more serious violations on a far more regular basis. And guess who is the common denominator in all of the above warnings you handed out? You guessed it. I was warned for daring to revert QuackGuru's edits on a couple of occasions (of which you only contributed to the second warning), SPACKlick seems to have been warned for the same thing and KimDabelsteinPetersen appears to have been warned because the tag they inserted might have hurt the feelings of QuackGuru because it said something along the lines of the article desperately needs improving. The fact that you choose to cherry pick a couple of incivility diffs from the dozens that I have provided and ironically call them "pathetic" "rediculous" clearly demonstrates that you have already made up your mind that generally I am in the wrong and QuackGuru is in the right.Levelledout (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things strike me here. This discussion should be at the request for arbitration. You really ought to have these discussions where editors assessing things can see them in order to build a wider picture of the issues. And Levelledout, there is no justification for KDP posting the Batsignal. I understand doing it in frustration, I'd even written it up as a preview edit in frustration then trashed it, but it shouldn't have been done. Although I don't understand Bishonen ignoring QG's repeated IDHT's and OWN issues, it boggles my mind. SPACKlick (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was a slightly silly thing to do, a mistake if you will, but done out of malice and worthy of a warning? I don't think so. Particularly in consideration of some of the stuff that QuackGuru has been up to which apparently isn't worthy of a warning. I agree SPACKlick, you are right, this conversation should have been had at arbitration and this isn't the appropriate place which is why I archived an earlier discussion that QuackGuru was trying to have with me. I will link to this discussion at the ArbCom page.Levelledout (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason "nobody else on the whole ArbCom page has said such things" is that it's not what the page is for. If you look at the page (you too, SPACKlick), you'll see this text: Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information." My italics. All comments on the request page are supposed to be concise, and to address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request. Your own comments too, you know, Levelledout. Also, did you see Euryalus's decline, where he said your request "lacks vigour"? That's actually a strong criticism of the way you've framed it, just expressed very politely. I'm done here for now, as you don't seem receptive to my advice. As for linking to this discussion on the RFAR page, good idea, please do. Oh, I see you already have. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Once again you are cherry-picking Bishonen. But anyway, it seems convenient that you should wish to finish the conversion. You obviously do not feel it necessary then to explain or justify in anyway why you have chosen not to take any action against QuackGuru for persistent and serious violations of policy, whilst at the same time taking actions against multiple other editors on the other side of the content dispute for one off minor incidents, all of these minor incidents happening to involve QuackGuru in some way and no doubt would not have happened if it wasn't for having to deal with QuackGuru's continuous violations of policies and guidelines. Please take into account that the editors that you have warned are often trying to uphold the policies and guidelines that QuackGuru routinely violates.Levelledout (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
The Arbitration Committee has declined the QuackGuru arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 12:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tensor
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tensor. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)