Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

AfD's generally closed too soon

This is a general complain, not aimed at one editor, so I post it here. Many editors, especially many admins, close AfD discussions early (hours or even days early) without a good reason (real "Snow" or "Speedy" closures). I am not claiming that the outcome would have been any different if we had let the discussions run a bit longer, but the current standard of letting AfD's open for at least seven days was achieved after some fairly lengthy discussions. I noticed the problem with it when someone added a day too early to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and Mathbot automatically indicated that only 16 of the 78 discussions were still open, half a day before the full seven days would expire.[1]

Looking at the actual log for 8 September only, I see that the first one was closed some 16 hours early, the second, the third and the fourth nearly two days early (as were the sixth and the seventh and many others by the same closer), and also by other people this one and this one and this or this. Oh, and this or this. And this one, after 4 1/2 days. The vast majority of the 62 discussions already closed, where closed hours to days too soon.

I'll notify the three editorsd with the most early closures of this thread, but could everyone who closes AfD discussions please respect the minimum time of seven full days? Fram (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that any disputed AfD should run the full 7 days, but I'm not seeing how a closure "16 hours early" causes a problem. If some editor intends a thorough dissection or a heroic re-write, it seems inadvisable to wait until the last few hours. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I check things listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, so yeah, had not realized there was a problem with things being listed too early at that page. Someone should go ahead and fix that page for future reference. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, that doesn't seem to be the problem, since you lowed many pages from the log for the 8th, which isn't listed there yet. Fram (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, some of those may have been relisted already, and thus were at AFD for longer than seven days. -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I only close from User:Excirial/Dashboard. I didn't realize that the listings included those earlier than they should be closed, although the nature of the list should have told me. (In fact on the top of the /old page it says "This page contains Articles for deletion discussions that have finished their discussion period and are eligible to be closed following the deletion process") I'll watch the times as well as dates now. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Boldly changed the text at the top of the page to reflect what it really is [2] NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have revised this change to reflect the actual policy: that fthe page lists discussions within 24 hrs of closing, but only those that have been open 168 hours may be closed. It would be even better if we could rewrite it so it actually did list the ones that can be closed, the way WP:PROD indicates the expired prods. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, why are you all balming this incorrectly on the Afd/old page? This lists only pages where every single one has passed the seven day (168 hour) limit. It doesn't list discussions 23 hours early, it lists a day only when the most recent discussion is at least 168 hours old. I have reverted the incorrect changes to the text of the AfD/Old page. Please check such things before making such statements. Fram (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I regret to have to admit that some of the examples above are my closings. I should not have closed them when I did. The reason I did so is the pernicious effect of instruction creep, and the effect of seeing what everyone else does--in practice I seem to have been looking at areas on the page where most of the articles are already closed, and following their examples by closing others nearby. I've previous been trying to fight this, and protested rather vigorously to the individuals, but in view of the insistence of one or two of the regular closer who have refused to change their ways, I seem to have unconsciously decided to join them--some of this may have been the understandable but not really good motive of trying to get my share rather than be foreclosed in this area by those who refused to follow the rules designed to allow cooperation.

But I see nothing on the above list that needs to be reopened to prevent error, either mine or the others, but anyone is I think free to do so.

I suggest we enforce this strictly, unless a SNOW close is appropriate in special cases and can be justified. The justification of a SNOW is like IAR--no good faith editor who wants to object. There might be one other special case: a BLP where the continued discussion is harmful.

I want to reiterate the reason for the rule: 7 days can shrink to 6 very easily--someone above seems to have said 16 hours is not too soon, but that's 2/3 of a full day. If someone argues why does it matter with a unanimous AfD, it will soon be why does it matter after two or three people have spoken, no matter how soon it is. We cannot tell it is unanimous until the end. And in order to get a reasonable spectrum of views, we need to accommodate those who do not contribute every day the way many of those in the discussion do. I have seen many AfDs changed or reversed by contributions made in the final hours.

I think we should clarify the relistings to indicate that a relisting must be for another 7 days. There are too many examples where one is closed after a single additional person has spoken. If we need to send out a message we need more time, it is simplest and fairest being for the same amount of time. If we already need to wait more than 7 days, no harm is done by another 7. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be ashamed of following the crowd and closing some AfDs early. At all. But what you describes certainly confirms what I have said before: If there is a rule not to close an AfDs early, but it is not followed, then it creates bias of a kind that I would prefer not to see: Admins who decide it's not all that important for themselves to follow the rules strictly have more influence on AfDs than those admins who insist on painstakingly sticking to the rules. Hans Adler 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I agree with the sentiment, but not your take on relistings. Relistings do not need to be for seven days, and in many cases should not be. If one additional !vote validates the outcome, then a close is appropriate. If discussion is ongoing and progress is being made, then yes, discussion should continue. A hard and fast rule on relistings is unneeded, in my experience. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here. If someone really cared that much about an article, they should have commented in the first week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, the {{Proposed deletion}} template includes a hard-coded timestamp; when the proper amount of time has elapsed, the template itself changes the visible text to highlight that "This article may be deleted without further notice". We've used similar functions for templates associated with the Arbcom elections (changing pages to open voting at the correct moment, for example). Could the AFD template be amended to show how long the page has been in existence? If the AFD is created with the nomination, then a template could add a "Don't close me early" flag until the current time is precisely 7 days after the first timestamp. Even better, the {{afd2}} template is substituted, to format the debate. We add a timestamp to that, so that the nomination is timestamped. Then, the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template, normally invisible, could display a notation under the title if the elapsed time is less than 7 days - or a different "This debate has been open 7 days, and may be closed shortly" notation once the elapsed time has gone past 7 days. Either way, we could retain the highly useful WP:AFD/OLD listings while avoiding early closures. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns voiced by many and have also noticed this problem. If most admins follow the seven-day rule, but a few don't, then those few admins will close the majority of AfDs. This is not desirable. As a partial solution, I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Encouraging compliance with the "seven full days" policy to add the following to deletion policy: "Administrators may without discussion undo any closure of a deletion discussion that occurs before seven days have elapsed." Comments are welcome on the policy talk page. Additionally I support any templated timestamp solution as per Ultraexactzz's proposal.  Sandstein  20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I was waiting a week, but I wasn't. That needs to be cleared up, but the above proposal makes sense. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a good solution, but it would be even better if admins had a place where they can find all AfDs that need closing, and only such AfDs. Then the problem would disappear automatically and we would prevent tensions from building up between admins. Hans Adler 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible to make a template on an open AFD add the AFD to a category exactly seven days after the AFD has been started. Ucucha 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of using a category rather than a list. It seems appropriate for the purpose. Hans Adler 08:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If the AFD2 template adds a timestamp, then REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD could add the category if CURRENTTIME=TIMESTAMP+7 days. We've already got the REMOVE template in place (it adds debates to CAT:AFD), so no need to add another invisible template that would need to be removed on closure. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Part 2

At first glance, this report has had the effect that the editors most responsible for these early closings have stooped this (thanks!), only to be replaced by others. These were closed after this discussion started, so... 14 hours early, 16 hours early, 13 hours early, 12 hours early (and many more by the same editor, who I'll notify), 5 hours early, 14 hours early, 14 hours early, 8 hours early, 8 hours early, and some more by this editor as well. Basically, this AN discussion has replaced the three editors most active in closing discussions early, with three other editors doing the same... Fram (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more careful and wait the full 7 days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(addition) Let's admit here: closing AfDs is fun. It's either like whack-a-mole when you have 10 delete !votes in a row, or more like sitting in the judge's seat with a controversial AfD; both are pretty amusing. A typical AfD cycle for a day's log goes: 25% are speedy closed, SNOW closed, withdrawn, or closed after 8-12 days (for relists) well before the 6 days. Next to go are the whack-a-moles, which comprise another 25%, in the first two hours. Slowly throughout the day some trickier AfDs get closed (again 25%). (This is where, admittedly, I do most of my work, after the moles have already been whacked by someone else.) 15% get relisted. Finally, the 10% is the nasty part that actually makes it into the -8 log: it's either annoying long or it has around five disparate !votes (the gray area where it's too many to relist and too few to call a consensus). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to wade through the coding this afternoon, and (hopefully) have a template add-on that will timestamp the debate when it is opened, list it as "Scheduled to close at (TIMESTAMP+7 days)", then - once that time passes - list it as "This debate is eligible for closure". Once the debate is either A) no longer included in CAT:AFD or B) included in Category:Relisted Deletion Debates, it will remove the timestamp. Consensus, above, is certainly strong enough for a trial. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely a guilty party on this one, closing some that were at 6 days and X hours, rather than 7 days. As a general rule, I guess, we all need to know where we stand on UTC-- in my case, I'm 5 hours behind, so at 7:00 this evening my time, it's Saturday on Wikipedia. If I was in California, 4:01 pm local would be 0001 hours UTC. I pledge to be more careful about this. Mandsford 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for timestamp on AFD2 template

I've gone ahead and coded a timestamp function for the {{afd2}} template - the code can be found at User:Ultraexactzz/Afdtimestamptest, and a sandbox example at User:Ultraexactzz/afd test. The afd2 template is the template that actually formats the deletion debate. The code will take the timestamp (+7 days) at the time the debate is formatted - this becomes the time of the nomination, and the +7 days sets the time after which the debate may be closed. It then compares the current time to that timestamp. If the current time is prior to that of the timestamp, a small notice gives the scheduled closure time (in the form "This debate is scheduled to end at 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC).") If the current time is after that timestamp, the notice becomes a standard-font bold "This debate has been open for 7 days, and may now be closed by an administrator.". I have not added categories, though this could be included as appropriate (and if there's consensus to create a Category for debates ready to be closed). I also am unsure how to remove the notice if Category:Relisted AfD debates is present; it might be that removing this parserfunction becomes a step in relisting, for now. The notice at WT:AFD points discussion to this page; should we make a request there as well, or just note that I'm calling the question? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Minus the by an administrator part :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea, but as for the implementation, I think {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} is a better place for it so that the "can be closed" note will be automatically removed after the debate is closed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, generally. Maybe we do both; we use the AFD2 template to enter a parameter (the current timestamp +7 days) into the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template, and then have REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE call that parameter when deciding whether to show "Debate scheduled to close at" or "This debate may now be closed". This has the virtue of not requiring the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template to be substituted, since debates are shifted in category all the time - we get a lot of bad inputs or custom categories, which put the debates into "Not yet sorted", and then someone changes the template to reflect the correct category. For example. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The relisting script will have to update the template and either change the timestamp or a relist parameter or both. There is no parserfunction, AFAIK, that tells if a page is in a category. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned vandal soapboxing on talk pages

Some of the last round of User:ECW500 socks are soapboxing and making silly accusations towards other editors, myself included, on their talk pages. See also [3] [4] [5]

Would anyone consider either reblocking the latest batch of socks to disallow talk page editing, fully protecting the talk pages, or both? McJEFF ^(talk) 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Going forward, that person's socks should probably be blocked with talkpage disabled right off the bat. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done those three. Haven't looked at all the rest to see if this needs doing on a wider scale. Courcelles 07:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and disabled talk page access to all the accounts, given the history here. Additionally, I found another sleeper; Newel Owlishly (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). They are now blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 06:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Trainweb images

Due to a recent discussion on WP:PUF, I've come across the {{trainweb}} template. It's flown under the radar for years, however the site and the template both clearly indicate that trainweb images are non-commercial and non-derivative only - there was a TFD at the beginning of the year that confirmed as much. However, all or near all the images are being used in a free sense (e.g., in galleries) and don't have a fair use rationale. I'm trying to go through the images one-by-one to determine which are only being used in replaceably-free ways (and marking {{subst:rfu}}), which are irreplaceable (and adding a rationale), and which are being used as both (adding a rationale, and removing the image from the other pages). This could take a bit, the number of images is in the 81-90 range; any help would be appreciated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That licensing tag is useless and misleading to user who don't understand copyright very well. I don't see why an uploader cannot tag it with a {{non-free fair use in}} and add a FUR with a real, non-boilerplate explanation for its use. I might TfD this template again if no one else does so soon. —fetch·comms 02:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The template specifically states that a FUR must also be used. If editors aren't adding a FUR, then that should be dealt with in the usual way. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I recently changed the template to be more specific. Before it just said the images are released "for any purpose", which is patently false (like I said... it flew under the radar). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

AWB request for registration

Hi. Could someone take a look at my registration request for AWB use? I applied on the 15th. Thanks Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry that it took some time. —fetch·comms 02:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Poll on interim use of PC

I have an RfC for the wording of a poll I'm going to run from Monday->Sunday on the interim use of PC while the Foundation works on the new version, due out November 9th.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why has this been posted only to the administrator's noticeboard? Is it only the opinions of administrators that are to be given any weight? Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't possibly be because that's the most prominent place Jimmy could think of on short notice. Obviously, it was meant to hide this from you personally, since only administrators ever read this noticeboard or are capable of doing so — which clearly explains why you were unable to see this notice. — Coren ^(talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's also a well known fact the Signpost is restricted to administrators so that publicizing it there is tantamount to making it a state secret. — Coren ^(talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Such a sarcastic way to avoid the question Coren, the answer to which is, of course, self-evident. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I approve of having this RfC on your talkpage, but regardless of that, is there going to be some format to this, or just a free for all? I would be in support of having a separate sub-section for each proposal, and keeping all discussion within that sub-section specific to that proposal and user's opinions of it. Otherwise I fear things may become too cluttered. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps it could be listed on the centralised discussion box? That would help overcome some of the difficulties of having an RfC in usertalk space, surely? DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I have taken my own advice and listed it on WP:CENT. DuncanHill (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also linked the RfC at the Village Pump/Policy, and at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes, these being the places it struck me as most appropriate. I believe the text I used was neutral in tone and content (of course, I welcome review). I think the combination of announcements here, at the Signpost talk page, WP:CENT, VPP and the Pending Changes talk page should be sufficient. DuncanHill (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Helmuth Nyborg

The article mentions something about an Olympic competitor. However I am not sure that this is the same person as the one that the article is about. Can someone see to this and correct it if necessary?--Nomenclaturehedonism (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, they're two different people, and both have articles; I've edited Nyborg's to remove the spurious info and added a hatnote. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems likely to me that they are the same person. The Olympic canoeist was Helmuth Nyborg Sørenson; the personal web page for Helmuth Nyborg lists him as Helmuth Sørenson Nyborg. Both appear to have birth dates of 1937, although it's difficult to verify this for the professor because of dead links in his article refs. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've just been alerted to the fact that last names are often dropped from Danish names ... in which case they could well be. If that's the case, the articles need to be merged. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The professor's Curriculum Vitae [6] (PDF) makes it clear that he's the kayaker as well. They are the same person, so merging is correct. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Series of articles on Italian Irridentism created by banned user

Hello everybody, I have a specific and a general question. These centre upon, but are not restricted to, a series of articles being created by socks of User:Brunodam about Italian irredentism. The articles concerned can be found under Template:Italian irredentism by region, but the tentacles spread far and wide to assert Italian supremacy into such articles as Nero expedition to Ethiopia. Now my questions. Specifically, what can be done about the new articles that Brunodam's clones are creating? We chop off one head of the Hydra, but the article always remains in place. I can confirm that all of the articles concerned are encylopaedically worthless - none of the references say what the article says. This is one of the reasons he was banned. But nobody has the time to check this. A new article appears, nobody has time to check the references, they are not in English anyway and voila, Wikipedia states the content as a fact.

Asking generally now, should/can/must articles created by banned users be deleted? If not, why not? What is the presumption? Is there a presumption that an article by a banned user has merit, or does not? It would be great if, after an SPI case, any new article shown to have been put up by a banned user could be automatically deleted. If there were any merit in it, somebody could request the text personally for readdition, so nothing would be lost, but knocking out articles created by socks of banned folk would help our credibility greatly.

Thanks for you attention, I will be interested to see what the consensus is on this. I don't remember having seen it asked before. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others can be speedied per WP:CSD#G5. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete SFD

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/November/29 was closed as rename, but no rename was done. Could someone fix them (since I don't know if it's possible to move categories?) — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, I think. —fetch·comms 02:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see whats going on here: the templates need to be updated. Could you move the cats though? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't move categories that easily, which is what the link I mentioned above is for. List it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working; the bot will then manually update every instance of that category because category redirects don't work as one would expect. —fetch·comms 20:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with some turkey

Some turkey keeps adding turkey to articles and abusing other editors by calling them turkeys and swearing at them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dozenhigh (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You can name the user at WP:AIV Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Renamed Imposter

So this popped up in my watchlist, and I noticed that the account has now been renamed 'Renamed Imposter', which it kinda obviously is - I wonder where the best spot to read up on the policy / process by which imposter accounts are renamed now is, and I also wanted to flag the obvious fact that when edits are reverted the original username is preserved in the diff - somewhat negating the point of renaming an account - if the intention is to occasionally remove libel / bad stuff from the username log, then it hasn't worked in this case. Personally I'm uncomfortable with the amount of renaming / rev. hiding etc. that's going on, so would like to read where decisions are being made, and process evolving :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you have to look a bit harder to see the name that was used originally, eg in the history of the user talk page. However other people will not be confused by this as the context is pretty clear in those logs. They could be hidden by more log redaction, but probably better to leave some visible evidence of the imposter's actions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming a user isn't the same as hiding the user name, as it leaves a trace visible to all people with access to Wikipedia. In this case, as you can see from the talk page history, the original name is "Ottava". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Filter Manager request

Hello everyone! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but my request for the edit filter manager group at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter has been open for nearly a month, and it would be nice if an uninvolved administrator could close it. Thanks! - EdoDodo ^talk 14:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Courcelles 15:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - EdoDodo ^talk 15:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Why was I banned for the three revert rule and the other user who also broke the rule was not? Please explain why the other user was not blocked as well so I can know that the system is fair and will respect the rules in the future.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A cursory check shows a clear consensus at Talk:Emerson, Lake & Palmer against the edit you were trying to make. Our policy on edit-warring describes it as "try[ing] to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting.". This describes your behaviour but not that of the editor reverting back to the agreed version. Consequently, you were blocked and he/she was not. CIreland (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you misunderstand policy. A couple of educational quotes for you.

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.

The "clear consensus" which you talk is extreme hyperbole and thoroughly expresses your ignorance of the issue. I have never known 4-2 to be a consensus. Especially when the opinions of at least some of the 4 express bias.

I have continuously tried to get a non-biased opinion on this issue and wikipedia has continuously let me down.

Good Day--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, are you saying it was alright for the other user to break the 3 revert rule? This is very interesting considering it is a rule and all. (Please see discussion heading)--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

UhOhFeeling - here's a little "light reading" to hopefully point this in the "right" direction: WP:NOTTHEM, WP:EW, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:LAWYER, WP:CIVIL... there's more, but this is a good start. Correct me if I'm wrong. Edits like this[7] may just make the point even more... Doc9871 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Ah, thank you sir.

Do not excuse what you did with what others did.

Are we then allowed, as the other user did, to break the three revert rule if we have an excuse?

Is the three revert rule a "rule" or not. I don't understand.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I was adding sourced information, the type of which is common on other pages. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. I was the one trying to discuss this matter. The other user simply kept reverting. Your links only establish that I followed policy (Other than my three revert rule violation which I apologize for) and the other user did not. (Please see discussion heading)--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do have to wonder why the other user wasn't blocked as well. A consensus on a talk page - especially one as vague as this - still isn't any reason to revert EIGHT times. I note that particular editor has a long block log for similar behaviour as well; their last one was a month. This is obviously stale now, but I do think the OP has a point, even if nothing is going to be done about it now. I've notified the other user, btw. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't Radiopathy still under a 1RR restriction for continued edit warring? 70.254.43.255 (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It doesn't really matter if they are; this issue is dead now, I merely wanted to make clear to the OP that there are only very limited reasons to break 3RR, and they're listed at WP:3RR#Exceptions - you'd need a very good reason to do it otherwise. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for explaining Black Kite.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the page, and with all due respect to all involved, I would certainly have blocked both editors, especially hearing now that Radiopathy is under 1RR restriction. If I'd seen the unblock I would have blocked the other user. UhOhFeeling does have a point there. UhOhFeeling, to get the best idea of why the block was applied as such, you might want to point the blocking admin to this thread. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review my use of WP:RD2

Hello all, I've deleted three revisions of Bisexuality, as can be seen here and here. Admins, could you please review my actions (first time using RD2)? I'd like to get a better feel for what qualifies and what doesn't. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 21:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

This is User:Zsfgseg.