Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck

Socratic Behavior

I personally support Socratic actions when they exist to prove a point that is worth proving. For example GRider's nominations of marginal cases to VfD to point out the lack of consensus on many issues and general obsessivness of the deletionists.

However, it seems to me that from most of the presented evidence Levelcheck's behavior has been a socratic attempt to prove that it is possible to waste large amounts of time by creating controversial categories/VfD's/VfD fodder.

I would ask that he be admonished, how ever I think that blocking or bans would be excessive and unwarrented since Levelcheck has never destroyed information. To me, information desctruction is the worst sort of wikicrime and thus the only one that should merit some of the very harsh sentances that have been handed out recently for far lesser offenses. Klonimus 09:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "Socratic" actions tend to violate WP:POINT. --cesarb 09:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]