| Revision as of 10:58, 2 April 2015 editMr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators59,191 edits →Final warning: reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:16, 13 December 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Levelledout/Archive 5) (botTag: Manual revert |
| (169 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
| algo = old(14d) |
|
| algo = old(14d) |
|
| archive = User talk:Levelledout/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = User talk:Levelledout/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 1 |
|
| counter = 5 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 20K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 20K |
|
| archiveheader = {{talk:Levelledout Archive}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{talk:Levelledout Archive}} |
| Line 12: |
Line 12: |
|
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes|}} |
|
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes|}} |
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
== Electronic cigarette == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Levelledout. I see that you've just made a revert at the ] article. Rather than reverting wholesale, please discuss changes on the talk page, otherwise it could result in a block. I'm sure that you've read it already, but if not, then please familiarise yourself with the ]. Thank you. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 02:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hello ]. Whilst I didn't consider it edit-warring I do accept that it was not completely necessary to perform a wholesale revert. Is there any chance that you could look into the fact that a particular user managed to get the , then almost immediately made 17 edits in two hours including a ? It seems very difficult to actually work together to achieve consensus when this is happening.] (]) 03:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hello again ], would you mind giving me a bit more feedback on this issue please? I know it's been a few days since you sent the original message but I'm wondering whether you are asking me not to revert whole/multiple edits at once just on e-cigarette articles or something else? Does this restriction apply to me or all editors? I ask because as I hope you understand I don't want to get blocked. Also, I wonder if you would mind pointing out to me which policy or guideline I was in violation of in order to receive the above warning? If I am perfectly honest, in spite of what I originally said, I did consider the edit necessary as I felt that the user in question was attempting to force through large-scale changes without consensus almost immediately after that user single-handedly managed to have full-page protection removed. I have read through the edit-warring policy and am at a loss to how that particular revert could have been considered edit-warring. There was no back-and-forth reverts, the process was simply 10k of changes from user > I reverted. It was also, to my recollection, the first time I have ever reverted multiple edits at once, therefore not something that I do routinely.] (]) 17:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::My previous message wasn't an official restriction, but rather a warning, and I was only warning you about the ] article. The article isn't under any special sanctions, but as it is obviously controversial I'll be enforcing the ] strictly there. (In particular, note that even if you don't break the ] it can still count as edit warring and still result in a block.) And yes, it was the edit-warring policy I was referring to. To be clear, one edit by itself usually doesn't constitute edit-warring; rather, I wanted to warn you about the policy before the situation got out of hand. Hope this clears things up. Best — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::OK yes understood, thank you for the information.] (]) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Final warning == |
|
|
|
|
|
Another revert like 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. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 01:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hello again ], 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 "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. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OK well I was trying to follow ]. 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 ] and gives a clear advantage to editors who don't respect the consensus process. I get what you are saying ], I have no choice but to stop wholsesale reverting, but I would appreciate it if you would please consider these points.] (]) 14:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*For my part, I was very tempted to block Levelledout right now, ]. After conceding 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 ] hardly applies, and it certainly doesn't make the central question of sourcing "irrelevant", as you seem to think. You are editing disruptively on ]. The only reason I'm not blocking you at this time is that Mr S has already warned you. ] | ] 10:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC). |
|
|
::I am literally staggered that you think that ] 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, ] doesn't make exceptions based on sourcing.] (]) 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 ] action, and, especially, is a battleground post. You offer no factual reason for reverting; apparently you think you don't have to. I suggest you read ] more carefully. It doesn't mention consensus. It does say {{tq|"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. ] | ] 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 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 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 ] 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'''".] (]) 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. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 23:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::], QG has inserted large amounts of information into the article from their sandbox on more than one occasion recently. On this last occasion he until inserting it into the article on 30 March. So far as I can tell at no point was anybody informed on the article talk page during this period.] (]) 02:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{OD}} {{tping|Mr. Stradivarius|Bishonen}}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? ] (]) 10:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:The appropriate venue for that would be ]. In my opinion, a slow-burning edit war is well worth warning over, however. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 10:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==General sanctions== |
|
|
{{Ivmbox |
|
|
|'''Please read this notification carefully:'''<br>A community discussion has authorised the use of ] for pages related to ].<br>The details of these sanctions are described ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged ]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|
|
|
|
|
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. |
|
|
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg |
|
|
| icon size = 50px}} ] | ] 22:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC). |
|
