User talk:LevenBoy

April 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter Edwards (artist). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You and your alter ego are not engaging with the content issue on the talk page, but are simply reverting with misleading edit summaries to boot. --Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neil Robertson (snooker player). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility parole[edit]

LevenBoy you are under civility restriction. Your edits on April 26th 2011[1][2][3] are in violation of that restriction. You have had ample time since this restriction was imposed to learn to use wikipedia properly and to behave in a civil and collegial manner. Further edits in this vein will result in sanctions.
Also, please stop using wikipedia noticeboards to make a point. If you are in dispute with other editors disengage from them and try dispute resolution--Cailil ^talk 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to above warnings for edit-warring. I will give you this single final warning under the terms of the British Isles topic probation. Further revert warring over the use of British Isles (alteration, insertion or removal) whether in one article or across many will result in this account being topic banned altogether from everything (articles, talk pages, portals, DYKs, categories, xfds, etc, and discussions on noticeboards about the topic and/or any edits related to it) to do with the British Isles topic area - this would be an imposition of sanction TB02 from WP:GS/BI.
You are experienced editor at this point LevenBoy. You have had warnings, you've had time to adjust, and the community has tried remedial restrictions (civility parole), if this account continues to disrupt wikipedia or to use wikipedia pages to make a point this account will simply be placed under further restriction--Cailil ^talk 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where have you suddenly popped up from? I must say I'm inclined to totally disregard your remarks above. Debates, sometimes heated, have been ongoing for a short while. Many people have participated, some would say progress has been made, some are moving on, there are developments, there are issues, tempers have frayed on all sides. Your warnings above are at this point totally inappropriate and pretty much out of context. And, consensus now seems to be that all the BISE stuff is redundant. LevenBoy (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LevenBoy, you are under restriction you are not permitted to post with anything less than perfect civility, it does not matter if "tempers have frayed on all sides".
You are in receipt of a final warning for disruption of wikipedia by breaching the British Isles topic probation and your own editing restriction within the last 3 days. The implications of your actions and your refusal to get the point are your problem from hereon in--Cailil ^talk 15:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GS/BI[edit]

LevenBoy, you are aware of the WP:GS/BI editing restrictions which are still in force. I'll give you a chance to revert yourself before taking this matter further, it's been a while. Also, your edit summaries are in breach of the civility restrictions placed on editing BI related articles. --HighKing (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:GS/BI states no systematic removals of BI, which is what you've started to do again. LevenBoy (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again. Carefully. And btw, *even* if what I'm doing is against the community sanctions, you are wrong to revert and you are in breach of civility with your edit summaries - so I don't think that excuse will wash. --HighKing (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might just have a case on the geography articles LevenBoy which is why I left them for discussion, but you are making a fool of yourself on the Roman one. I suggest you self-revert --Snowded ^TALK 11:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even* if he has a case, his reversions are in breach of WP:GS/BI. Those sanctions don't rule on content - it's about policy and behaviour. He has reverted without references, and his edit summaries are in breach of prior warnings on civility. He's had his chance to revert and he seems to have chosen not to. --HighKing (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic banned[edit]

You are banned from all editing in relation to the British Isles naming dispute under the terms of the British Isles Topic Probation: Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors.. Your edits here[4][5] and here[6] (as well as these edits[7][8][9][10]) constitute repeated revert warring in direct and obvious breach of the British Isles Topic Probation after a warning for such behavior was issued[11]. The formal wording of the ban is as follows:

User:LevenBoy is topic banned from editing in naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, and the British Isles naming topics, widely construed. This user is also banned from commenting upon or otherwise discussing this topic anywhere on wikipedia.

The ban code for this on WP:GS/BI relates to the community imposed sanction TB02. Sanctions will be enforced by escalating blocks if required.
Please note that this account remains under civility parole also and that matter is a separate and separately enforceable (and appealable) sanction. Please follow the appeals proceedure as outlined at WP:GS/BI if you wish to appeal this sanction--Cailil ^talk 16:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River Shannon[edit]

Howdy. Why the heck wouldya wanna get involved with that latest BI discussion? It's more interesting to sit back & watch. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's being ironic. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emails[edit]

With regard to your emails - which are in my view an attempt to game the system with regard to your topic-ban - I have opened a discussion on the administrator's noticeboard. You are free to comment there as long as your comments are restricted to your conduct and do not bring-up the edits of others in areas from which your are banned--Cailil ^talk 17:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I will not go into copious detail here LevenBoy, let me respond to your two emails which raised points (again) about User:HighKing's editing vis-a-vis the British Isles naming dispute. This will be the only answer to you that I will give with regard to this topic as long as you are topic banned from it. You are after all restricted from all discussion of the topic area on wikipedia widely construed. And it would behove you to edit productively and constructively elsewhere on the encyclopedia showing your ability to be civil while writing collaboratively with other editors using the best possible reliable sources, rather than remain focussed on the British Isles naming dispute topic.
The points you raised instances old edits, from 2008 which HighKing has recognized as less than perfect. It was his recognition of this that changed my opinion that he should be topic banned in 2009. This is what WP:BISE emerged from. Significant progress in the moderation of behaviour has been made since 2008 and at various times HighKing's edits have been reviewed by a number of sysops (TFOWR, BlackKite, 2/0 and myself). Currently I do not see a "campaign" of unsourced additions/removals/alterations. I do see edits, I do see discussions (and attempts to find consensus), but I don't see original research. The latest issue you raise as being problematic is related to this edit[12] along with the discussion around it on the talk page - HK has not reinstated that edit since he was reverted a month ago.
As it stands an ANI thread would be a breach of your restriction.
You may of course appeal your sanctions but you may need to show how you have remedied your behaviour since they were imposed.
Again I will not address, or respond to further comments that re-hash the issues wrt HighKing or others whom you were reverting when you were placed on restriction (as you have already been restricted from commenting on the topic area)--Cailil ^talk 20:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for and your access to email has been disabled for continuing to attack other editors after you have been topic banned from the subject under WP:GS/BI sanctions. Your email messages probably also breach your civility restriction. Consider yourself lucky this block is only for one month.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]