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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	24	45	69
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 137 sockpuppet investigations
• 18 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 44 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 28 requested closures
• 115 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 15 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (37 out of 7751 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith Template:FAQ/FAQ 2024-05-12 10:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers User:Arjayay/Rang HD 2024-05-12 10:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rang HD -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Rangiya 2024-05-12 09:27 2024-10-16 06:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: confirmed socks edit the article Ymblanter Vaush 2024-05-12 07:35 indefinite edit,move per WP:CT/BLP Primefac Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in January–June 2015 2024-05-12 04:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Later-no-harm criterion 2024-05-12 03:07 2024-06-12 03:07 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: Protected per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston Draft:Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:41 2024-08-11 20:41 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:35 indefinite create Persistent sockpuppetry JJMC89 2024 Kharkiv offensive 2024-05-11 12:11 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR --requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Drake (musician) 2024-05-11 09:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Slovenia 2024-05-11 09:29 2024-05-18 09:29 edit edit wars on the page Tone Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 May 2024 – present) 2024-05-11 03:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Czech Republic 2024-05-11 02:43 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:ARBEE Daniel Case Ben Shapiro 2024-05-11 02:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBAP2 Daniel Case Eden Golan 2024-05-11 02:03 2025-05-11 02:03 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts ScottishFinnishRadish Nguyễn Văn Hùng (martial artist) 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyen Van Hung 2024-05-10 20:21 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Phan Bội Châu 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyễn Kim Hồng 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Vietnamese people in Taiwan 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian McGill University pro-Palestinian encampment 2024-05-10 19:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case England 2024-05-10 13:52 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter

Audit of indef IP blocks

Moved from WP:AN/I

 – Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've found many indef IP blocks on Special:BlockList, some of them are obviously wrongly set, while some indef blocks for open-proxy seemed to be harsh. e.g. an indef block on 2016 for an IP as open proxy, but these addresses may not allocated to open proxy today. I'd like to ask for help if some sysops want to clean them up. -Lemonaka‎ 15:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Link to the filtered list — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You may find this list more useful. ST47 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: I know that @Yamla, @RoySmith, @zzuuzz, and I have all undone some of these lately. But it's tedious working through them, and a lot of the old proxy blocks are still valid. If you want to put together a table of old IP blocks, the reason for blocking, and why you think the reason no longer applies, feel free to drop that at WP:AN. I'm especially open to undoing old schoolblocks that have been in place for more than half of Wikipedia's existence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I usually allow account creation on long-term school blocks these days and would like to see that become common practice. If it was up to me, that's what I'd do with most of the old school blocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I got into this a while ago and then lost steam. In general, I agree that many of these should be cleared out, and policy for new school blocks should probably limit them to a year, or at most several years, except in extraordinary situations. RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Listing:

1. 2600:1700:1B21:76C0:0:0:0:0/64--Too harsh for one strike, bad reason
2. 2600:1700:1B21:76C0:977:1FB8:DD1D:4B7D --Too harsh for one strike, bad reason
3. 2A01:4C8:1084:CFA3:C5B5:4AF4:1A01:595C --indefinite for first vandalism
4. 79.43.155.16 --indefinite for first vandalism
5. 2409:4063:4382:AAC0:0:0:0:0/64--indef for first vandalism
6. 68.112.39.0/27 indefinate old school block
7. 192.235.8.3 Indefinate old school block

-Lemonaka‎ 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

God they are so many, I'd like to list them later. -Lemonaka‎ 01:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If we're doing this now, this isn't really an incident. I'll move to AN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I've looked through all of the 2023 blocks and some of 2022. Most look like simple misclicks. I was going to ping everyone who'd made them, but that's a lot of hassle for all involved, so instead, unless anyone objects in the next day or two, I'd like to start bumping down (to a shorter term or time served) any entries at User:ST47/indef-blocked ips that are for simple reasons like vandalism or edit warring, unless there's a long history of disruption.

For ones that may have been intentional, probably worth asking individually:

• @Daniel Case: Does 2001:1970:4962:D100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) need to be indef?
• @PresN: What about 2600:1700:1B21:76C0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))?
• @Oshwah: 103.251.17.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 85.202.184.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))?

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin In addition to check after being blocked, some policy needed to be updated to limit indefinite block of an IP. The blocking policy for indeffing IP is currently ambiguous.
Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses said

IP addresses used by blatant vandals, sockpuppets and people issuing legal threats should never be blocked for long periods unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time.

But a better way should suggest how long it may be blocked, or the range of length the block can be. Even open proxy may not be indeffed, a better way is using BOT to scanning them when starting to edit. School blocks may lengthen every time they blocked but may not be blocked indefinitely on the first time. There's really lot to discuss about. -Lemonaka‎ 02:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the current wording of WP:IPBLENGTH is pretty clear: "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked". Occasional exceptions arise, and very statically-owned proxy ranges are one of them. Very static IPs/ranges used by LTAs are another. Institutional IPs with extraordinarily high rates of vandalism may be another. If I were to add one thing to the essay it would be something like "In a given year there will usually be fewer than 5 valid indefinite blocks of IP addresses." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but what about a 20 or 30 years of block against an IP address, are they legitimate? We have 10-year block though. My proposal is to set a maximum blocked length and standardize the process for using indefinite IP blocks. -Lemonaka‎ 03:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The de facto maximum block length for IPs is 10 years. There's a report somewhere of unusually long blocks. They either get shortened or converted to indef. I don't think there's any need to standardize something there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I concurred. This may origin from the difference between statutory law and case law. -Lemonaka‎ 04:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Tamzin - ......DANG IT! I managed to let myself indefinitely block an IP address... Twice! I should really take some time and add code to my scripts to give them the ability detect if the indefinite I'm about to place is on an IP, then spit an error back... Anyways, thanks for going through and auditing the IP blocks over the last year. This is something I try to do at least once a year, while posting the results here. So... thanks for saving me from having to do that! :-) Those IP addresses should not have been indefinitely blocked. Enough time has elapsed since the block was applied (both in December 2022), so I've removed the block on both of them.

For the record, you are 100% correct. Unless an extremely extenuating circumstance completely out of the norm exists for a certain IP or situation, IP addresses and IP address ranges should not be indefinitely blocked. It's okay to set the IP block many years out, so long as they are set to eventually expire (shoot, there are a pile of school IPs that are on 5, 7, even 10 year blocks). This is the reason why I performed yearly audits, just as you're doing right now. Again, thanks for putting forth the hard work and effort, and for keeping us honest. ;-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I probably made a mistake there; I might have been in the middle of indeffing some registered accounts. Since it's been more than six months, I have unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake, to be honest; when an IP address spends several days subtly vandalizing a range of pages, and upon being blocked proceeds to continue for several more days, I'm not terribly interested in wasting my time sending more than one warning or debating whether "literally infinite" or "long enough that they never come back" is the right option to pick. The result is the same- it's an IPv6 address, they'll have a different one if they ever want to edit productively in a few years, and I've never seen an ip address get 2+ warnings during a vandalism spree and decide to become a productive editor. If consensus is that "long enough that they never come back" is the right dropdown option, then sure, dropped it to 1 year, and I'll do my best not to re-offend. --PresN 14:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@PresN the issue is that IP addresses get reallocated over time. Even static addresses don't last forever; carrier networks get reconfigured, customers change carriers, etc. For a typical residential customer, 1 year is plenty long, and if abuse persists after the year, 2 or 3 should be about the limit. Even for something like an open proxy running out of a data center, it's hard to imagine any scenario where blocks longer than that make any sense. RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

My three on that list are all partial blocks from specific articles of clearly static IPs for long term disruption to said articles and I believe they should stay as is. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail I'm looking at the first one. The "long term edit war" consists of 5 edits over about 13 months. My general rule for blocking IPs is to block them for as long as it appears they've belonged to the same user, because that's a first-order approximation to how dynamic the allocation. Using that rule, a block of 1 year would have made sense here.

For the second one, the IP went active 6 weeks before your block. Blocking it indef was clearly an overreaction. Block it for a couple of months and see what happens. If they come back, a reblock of a year could be justified. But all making it indef does is at some point in the future when it get reallocated to somebody else, you've created a problem that somebody else will need to sort out. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: P-blocks are less of an issue, but Roy's comment above^{intended referent was cmt. of 15:00, but applies to cross-post of 15:41 too} still applies. Sooner or later they won't be the same person. 168.195.126.171 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has only been in use 18 months; 50.204.200.142 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) had 2 edits in 2015 and then everything else was in the 6 weeks before you blocked (and is a p-block from all of mainspace, so closer to a siteblock); 80.111.4.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))'s disruptive edits run December '21 to June '23 (including after the p-block). I would say set the first to 2 years from most recent edit, unblock the second, and make the third a siteblock running to 18 months from most recent edit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 15:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Great minds, @RoySmith. Or something like that... ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 15:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Easy ones done

Okay, per the above, I have handled 22 cases from 2022 and 2023 where the block appeared to be a routine IPblock where indef was set accidentally. Based on the principle of blocking for roughly as long as the IP has been in use by the person in question, 17 were commuted to time served and 5 were converted to temporary blocks. That leaves:

• The three blocks by Canterbury Tail, discussed above: Special:Contribs/168.195.126.171, Special:Contribs/50.204.200.142, Special:Contribs/80.111.4.80. It would be nice to have a bit more discussion of them.
• @Courcelles: 84.65.85.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is blocked for socking (non-CU block). Is there a CU aspect or other extenuating circumstance here?
• @PhilKnight: 45.129.234.49 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is blocked for PROMO, so I was expecting it to fall into the accidental-indef category, but it turns out all their edits are OS'd. Is there something in the OS'd stuff that justifies an indef?
• @Drmies: Does 82.24.202.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) still need to be indeffed?

Thank you all in advance. Next round, old schoolblocks! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: - I have unblocked 45.129.234.49. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin: go ahead and unblock if you like--it's been a while now. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Think I had some accounts in the mix when I issued mine, must have hit them all with the same hammer by mistake. Shortened that one. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Also to note there are a few IP blocks done by WMF as office actions. Can you maybe consult with WMF before shortening the block? I think it might be accidental.

But to be honest, I don't think there is anything wrong with an indefinite IP block as long as the IP is able to still appeal the block and show that it no longer relates to them. For example, with open proxies, we can have those blocked indefinitely until it is confirmed that the IP no longer belongs to an open proxy. Awesome Aasim 16:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was intentional on the WMF's part, but I'll drop a ping to @WMFOffice and/or @JSutherland (WMF)​ to confirm. For context, the blocks in question are 36.227.120.0/22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 1.163.0.0/18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). They are the only outstanding Office blocks on enwiki, at least of the User:WMFOffice epoch. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Are indef IP p-blocks okay?

So, Canterbury Tail above and Cullen328 on my talkpage have both expressed the opinion that indef P-blocks of single IPs (or IPv6 /64s) are acceptable. I rarely find myself disagreeing with either admin, but I think Wikipedia:Blocking policy § IP address blocks (policy) and Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses § Indefinite blocks (explanatory essay) are pretty clear here. Now, both of those sections predate the use of partial blocks, and one could make the case that p-blocks should be a carve-out. They're definitely, on balance, less disruptive, and I don't dispute for instance Black Kite's several indef p-blocks of disruptive /16s from a few year-related articles. But in the latter case there is, as I understand it, years of disruption. So in short my answer to this question is they're less problematic, but should only be used for long-term disruption. Otherwise, many individually not-too-bad indef p-blocks add up to a headache over time, as has happened here. (Note: I will leave a cross-post to this section at WT:BLOCK.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but one year blocks would be better. IP's change over time. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I've not clearly expressed my view, but the odds of an IP returning to the same article with a different user and wanting to edit is extremely low. Like you're better investing in lottery tickets low. The only exception to that is IPs that represent institutions like schools, universities and the like. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I like what you said better.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes In my view, pageblocking an obviously disruptive IP from one specific article is dramatically different than a sitewide block. Like using a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. But if the consensus is that indefinite pageblocks of IPs are not acceptable, then I will limit such blocks to one year. I hope that other editors will comment. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I will go with consensus, quite happily. But it is my opinion that it's non-harmful. Canterbury Tail talk 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't much collateral damage to the average individual p-block of this nature. The issue is with assessing them in aggregate. Someone (me in this case) has to check periodically if indef IP blocks are still needed. I guess, yes, we could just ignore partial ones, but we do plan for Wikipedia to be around for quite a while, I hope, and sooner or later someone will have to take a look. (I mean, maybe not, with potential IP masking or an end to IP editing, but who knows where either of those might go.) So that's a nontrivial downside compared to little chance of benefit beyond the short term. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think they're definitely a lot more ok than site blocks, but I still wouldn't see the reason to block for e.g. 3 or 5 years instead of indefinitely. I think it's fine go straight to a long pblock rather than escalating with site-wide blocks. Galobtter (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to assess on a case-by-case basis, say if someone requests removal of the partial block?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say most people when they see block are not going to appeal it. But I see the argument - but at the same time a 5 year block would do 99% of what an indefinite block would do. Galobtter (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

See here's one thing with my view on indefinite blocks (not just P-blocks but site wide as well.) They're not permanent. They're until there's a reason to lift it. I think a lot of admins are more likely to lift an indefinite block for good reason than an X time block. There's a feeling that a definite length block should often stay, but an indefinite (again not permanent) can be negotiated and adjusted. I tend to use indefinite as a tool in blocks to ensure editors don't just return after time served and continue doing what they were doing when their behaviour isn't acceptable, but instead need to convince the community in order to re-obtain their editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 21:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no they're not OK and we shouldn't encourage them in any way (by way of 'carve-out' or similar). They're bad practice because they generate work for people reviewing them, or even not reviewing them as others get reviewed. Tamzin has it right, IMO. Do us all a favour and just set them long time, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I've seen several three-year site blocks for some IPs and more partial blocks for other IPs. That is probably a pragmatic equivalent for indefinite but I wouldn't object to five years if someone thought that was warranted. More than one year is definitely called for in some cases where an obsessive IP has more or less no useful edits but who periodically returns to their favorite topic. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the precursor thread to this, what I do is look at the IP's history and try to figure out how long this IP has been associated with the same user. I block for approximately that long. No need to obsess about the details, as long as I've got the right one out of {1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 1 year}. For residential IPs, even static allocations will change over time as networks get reconfigured or customers change carriers. And even if they don't, in the common case of a kid playing with mommy's or daddy's computer, they're likely to lose interest (or just plain grow up a bit) by next year. In the case of a school, if it's one particular student who's being a jerk, they're likely to have moved on in a year, or certainly in a few years.

In summary, if the IP has no history, make a reasonable length block. If at the end of that, problems recur, by all means make a longer block. But in almost all cases, a year is about as long as you want to go and it's almost inconceivable that anything longer than 2 or 3 years can be justified. RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

In general I agree, and reviewing my logs it appears I follow that procedure. However, I have seen occasional three-year blocks that I agreed with, I think particularly for what appeared to be open proxies. Sorry, can't find an example now. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

First, how partial is "partial"? A block from one article is a very different beast than, say, a block from all of mainspace. But in both cases, the use of an indef on an IP, whether partial or sitewide, should be very rare. Remember that while all of us here know what IP addresses are and how they work, many (probably most) Internet users have no idea how networking actually works, and even if they've heard of an "IP address" they have no idea what it actually is or how they're assigned, so they may have no idea to make an unblock request stating "I think someone else abused this IP before I had it, and it looks like that was seven years ago, could you unblock it now?". They probably think that for some reason, the block is targeted at them, and just get discouraged and leave. It should be a pretty extraordinary case that a block longer than a year gets applied to an IP, and even more extraordinary that it should be indef. That doesn't mean "never", but pretty close to it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes for individual pages only. No for namespaces, as the risk of collateral damage is too high. Basically the criteria should be: if they return to editing the pblocked domain in 5 years, can we be confident (per WP:DUCK) that they are the same user? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes for the individual pages, but I wouldn't be particularly bothered if those indefs of mine on the year-related pages were converted to, say, 3 years. I suspect they'll have got bored by then. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I don't see a problem with indef IP partial blocks. I don't even see a problem with indef IP blocks. The whole point of a block is to prevent further disruption, and if an IP is reassigned, it would be trivial for an administrator to review, see the IP is reassigned, and then unblock. Indefinite is not "infinite", just however long is needed to stop disruption. Awesome Aasim 13:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Original Research Noticeboard

I am requesting that one or two administrators look at the recent activity or lack of activity at the original research noticeboard. It appears to be a place where content disputes go to die, but if the content disputes, due either to original research or to mistaken claims of original research, are not addressed, the conduct disputes surrounding them are likely to persist. I noticed the lack of involvement of neutral volunteers when I sent a dispute about Hickory Wind, a folk song, from DRN to NORN. The two editors have been discussing it there for nearly a week, but the discussion has only been the principals. However, that experience is nothing unusual. I may have missed something, but I don't see any neutral or third-party input on the noticeboard in the past month.

Have I missed something, or is the original research noticeboard the place where both original research and mistaken claims of original research are quietly ignored? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need two separate noticeboards for enforcing WP:NPOV (WP:NPOVN) and WP:NOR (WP:NORN). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Could amalgamate into a "Core content policy compliance noticeboard", in theory. —Alalch E. 23:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge WP:NPOVN, WP:NORN, WP:CEN, and maybe WP:ELN, into WP:CNB. I think that would leave WP:BLPN as the only separate content noticeboard. Levivich (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: You forgot WP:RS/N –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

User:MJL - I thought User:Levivich was making a deliberate distinction because sources are not content, but are where you get the content from. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, no original research can be seen partly as a special case of the reliable sources policy, because original research is when the editor acts as their own source. However, if the volunteers at the neutral point of view noticeboard are willing to comment on original research, that is better than having a noticeboard where original research is reported to a soundproof wall. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there another forum where this noticeboard issue should be discussed? I don't think that we have a WP:NOTICEBOARDNOTICEBOARD for discussions about noticeboards. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:VPR? 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:48E2:677C:8FB2:67C1 (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Noticeboard proliferation noticeboard already exists for this joke. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

So noted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that NOR/N and NPOV/N get a lot of requests that say "Come to this page to comment". I always though that these boards should be used after a failed consensus or if an issue came up on a page and that the noticeboard was intended to be the place of discussion for it, as to get the eyes of those that follow, instead of requiring outside editors to add a random page to their watchlist if they want to participate more than once. (The exception would be here for formed RFCs where the poster is seeking input from multiple, appropriate boards).

I would not recommend merging NOR and NPOV noticeboards. While there can be overlap, I think that they are distinct enough that we really need both, as long as we have the discussed used as I described. If these boards just become pointers to talk page, then merging may be better, but I think we want to discourage that use more. Masem (t) 00:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOVN is functioning and NORN is not functioning, that's the thing. —Alalch E. 01:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

NORN *is* functioning, it was never meant to be where intractable conflicts go to die... So making whether it effectively ends intractable conflicts the metric by which we judge its effectiveness seems to be something of a red herring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Masem - I was the Original Poster, and said that NORN is not functioning. I would be interested, and I think some of the rest of us would be interested, in other solutions. I agree that they are distinct enough that we need to be able to call attention to both content issues. So what should we do about original research, and especially about synthesis amounting to original research, which is less obvious than original original research? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I think there is a sense in which NPOV and NOR are remarkably similar policies under the surface, but their meanings often get muddled when people bring them up in conversation. In particular, people frequently take NPOV to be about ideas like the tone of the writing, taking a restrained or even-handed attitude towards the topic, etc., when really it's just about hewing close to the sources: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." NOR is also about hewing close to the sources: "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." In both cases, to resolve a dispute, you ask the same questions: what sources do we have on this, what do they actually say, and can we trust them? I really feel like every single content dispute can be addressed that way; that's how I approach things when I do 3O and I feel like it's very reliable. A "source pool analysis noticeboard" might be a reasonable place to approach questions about both NPOV and NOR—like, a place where you can ask, "Do sources X, Y, and Z support conclusion A?" 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 19:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little bit more...In some ways I acknowledge that the idea of a noticeboard like this overlaps with what an article's talk page is for, but I also kind of feel like that's a strange aspect of the whole idea of "noticeboards" in general. In theory, I guess, they're for "general cases" that might have applicability across many articles—I feel like WP:RS/N works fairly well in that regard (although I feel like sometimes people are a little too tempted to over-lean-on vague or sparse discussions there in distant disputes, but that temptation is also maybe inherent to the idea of noticeboards). Anyway, to some extent, the idea of whether sources X, Y, and Z support conclusion A could have general applicability...it's not intrinsically specific to a single article... 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 20:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the difference between WP:NPOVN and WP:NORN is sort of fundamental to the policies in question. NPOV violations are just easier to notice out in the wild than OR violations, which usually manifest as either unsourced statements (and so get deleted or ed) or manifest crackpottery (and so go to WP:FTN). Loki (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO thats more of a behavioral issue on the part of those "principles" than anything wrong with NORN. Bludgeoning is obviously going to discourage the participation of non-involved editors. Involved parties have a duty to make space for uninvolved parties on noticeboard and if they're not doing that then we have appropriate remedies for that sort of behavioral issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-EC created ARBPIA page fiasco

I have belatedly realised, having already made quite a mess of things, that List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War, which is clearly under ARBPIA, was created by a non-EC user. Heedless of this I started the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War, after first enquiring about the topic at WP:NORN. I then realised that the original page creator was a non-EC editor, and that no other editors have really had any substantial input on it. I'm now not sure what either the right or the best way forward is. Should the AfD proceed, or should it be closed procedurally and the content removed, as I think happened with a similar case earlier this week (although for what was a more severe case of dodgy content)? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, deletion is not required per WP:ARBECR, so I'd say most likely it would be left open. Discretion would be similar to any other G5. (though of course page creators are often not aware of the ECR) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a particularly useful list, what's the point of it? Should we have one for Ukraine as well? Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

We have one. Also one for Russia. Briefly discussed at WP:NORN#Odd heads of state visit lists emerging. Shells-shells (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, think I won't be watchlisting them, be interesting to see how many page views they get sometime in the future. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The AFD is leaning keep. Because of this, it doesn't look like an "obvious" case and I would be inclined to let it run. Just my two cents. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Admin review of procedural close issue is required

I started the RFC[1] by asking interested editors are they in favor information ”Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” changed to ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. I wrote the introductory explanation and presented the sources. The same RFC was closed due to neutrality issues. An example for this RFC was a question I asked in the article Marco Polo (Should the text in the lead describing Marco Polo as Italian merchant be changed from "Marco Polo was an Italian merchant" to "Marco Polo was an Venetian merchant"?)[2] And there were no problems with neutrality and the RFC itself was closed without any problem. I would like an explanation in sense what question I should have asked to make RFC neutral? Information that Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer is already in the article and based on the sources. Information that Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer was presented at RFC with presented sources. If everything is fine with my question, I would ask the administrators to enable the continuation of this RFC. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's my intro that isn't neutral? I would delete my introduction and just ask interested editors this: ”I ask interested editors whether the introductory part should be harmonized with more RS and instead of information that ”Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” be changed to ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. Is it okay now? And sorry for the introductory part which I wrote in order to explain my point of view as my opinion in this RFC. Mikola22 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) That question is way to long, and anything but neutral. A simple "Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer?" was all that was needed. For example the question of the previous RFC you mentioned was The biography of Christopher Columbus describes him as an Italian navigator. The question is whether that nationality should be removed as inappropriate. Keeping any notifications as short and simple should also avoid any issues with neutrality. You can always present your case in your own comment to the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. Mikola22 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting here Mikola, that I introduced a neutral question at the beginning and you deleted my comment. Perhaps you should approach this process a little more calmly.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The Banner harassment and Wikihounding

User The Banner is leaving me multiple messages claiming vandalism on my talk page and reverting many of my edits with very little detail. I suspect he does not understand the definition of vandalism. The edits they have restored are all very questionably referenced if at all and not really of encyclopedic significance. What worries me the most is that this particular edit [3] is on a totally different subject to both his and my normal editing which suggests they have been trolling through my edit history for things to revert which to me is a clear case of WP:HOUND of which I am uncomfortable with. Maungapohatu (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look as simple as that. Sure, WP:BURDEN means people adding stuff need a source, but editors who systematically remove probably good information from articles are a nuisance. How about stopping and using an article talk page to discuss an example where the edit warring is occurring? Your edit summaries are possibly accurate and you may be totally correct, but pressing on without discussion on at least one article talk page is not desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This is about hounding and baseless accusations about vandalism not edit warring.Maungapohatu (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a history between you and The Banner, or is the reported problem the only interaction that you recall? You are correct that your edits are not WP:VAND and The Banner is wrong to have left silly templated warnings. However, I think it is better to focus on the substantive issue. At any rate, assuming there is no background history, you should have politely pointed out to the other editor what WP:VAND says and why the warnings are not applicable in a case like this. Wikipedia relies on individuals doing what they can to monitor situations. If necessary, I'm happy to spell out that side issue to The Banner but the underlying problem regarding a disagreement over certain edits remains. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Maungapohatu has a talk page full of warnings about disruptive editing. I am not hounding him, I just have a lot of airports on my watchlist due to ongoing vandalism by an IP-farm (unrelated to Maungapohatu). But Maungapohatu also sees a sourced destination as That is essentially Unreferenced. It is also not a detail that should be in an encyclopedia. Maybe harsh, but due to that I warned him/her for vandalism. The same with the removal of focus cities by airlines. Not attempt to find sources and rejection of WP:BURDEN. Common attitude is to ask for sources, not bluntly removing info. The same at Aer Lingus. I did not take me long to find the source for this, contrary to his remark There are no sources that suppoRt this WP:BURDEN suggests everything Unreferenced can be deleted. The term focus city is primarily an American thing.And it is quite reasonable the focus city as a term does not apply here. IMHO, Maungapohatu is the problem here. And (s)he is coming after me to hide their own faults, vandalism and disruptive editing. A WP:BOOMERANG is applicable here. The Banner talk 09:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any action against anyone is needed here. No, these edits were not vandalism, but nor were they helpful. The OP seems to be hung up on whose job it is to find sources. It is everyone's job to find sources, including mine. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Bad Pre-Mature RfC Closure by BilledMammal

Apologies for the text block…Full context of the issue is given as well as a small timeline.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Keraunos was recently closed ([4]) by BilledMammal with the reasoning, “RfC is premature; a search of the archives show that this source has not been subject to repeat discussions, and thus doesn't meet the requirements listed at the top of the page for an RfC to be held. Note, the italic part was added by me as that was colored in the closure reasoning.

That reasoning seems a little odd, given WP:RFCBEFORE does not state anything that “repeated discussions” had to have occurred prior to the RfC starting, especially since WP:RSP/WP:RSN is mostly done through RfCs. Anyway, in the RfC, past talk page discussions/disagreements were mentioned (naming a few):

1. Talk page questioning source reliability in 2009
2. Disagreements in July 2023 about the source ([5][6])
3. Source disagreement in November 2022 ([7])
4. Article with ESSL source + 2 Keraunos sources only marked with a “unreliable source” template in October 2022.

So, with those listed, despite not having formalized discussions, there is clearly a disagreement between editors on the source. Actually, even the RfC showed that, as myself and Hurricane Noah were the only two editors who !voted in the RfC, with myself saying it is reliable and Hurricane Noah saying it was generally unreliable.

Here is why the “Pre-Mature” RfC closure was bad: As stated in WP:RSPCRITERIA, For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. During the RfC, when it was suggested the RfC may have been started pre-maturely/badly, even Hurricane Noah stated there was clear disagreement occurring, so the RfC was still needed. Hurricane Noah stated that “withdrawing this RfC would sweep the issue under the rug and simply require another discussion. Why not just tackle this here since we are already discussing it?”

I brought to BillMammal’s attention (Talk page) that the RfCs on WP:RSN should probably not be closed early unless it is a clear WP:SNOW closure as it interrupts them. Their response was to state the first half of WP:RSPCRITERIA, conveniently stopping right before the phrase I bolded above. Instead of wanting to discuss the issue, BilledMammal said if I wanted to challenge the early closure, I needed to come here. So I am. I believe BilledMammal, while not intentionally trying to, disrupted a needed discussion by early closing it without a valid reason. Also, it appears they do not fully understand WP:RSPCRITERIA, given they ignored the phrase about a uninterrupted RfC in their closing as well as after it being mentioned on their talk page. I formally request an admin re-open the RfC and, as Hurricane Noah (who I disagreed with in the RfC) stated nicely, not “sweep the issue under the rug”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Please don't start RfCs until you've exhausted the alternatives.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Bruh, it is WikiProject Weather members disagreeing with each other. Well…I ain’t willing to spend the time to try to open more discussions, so I guess the issue will be swept under the rug, like it was sort of back in 2009, 2022, and July 2023. Cheers y’all? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it's an RfC to classify the reliability of a source at RSN. Cheers, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• You would be correct if this was an RfC in a general location. Your RfC was located at WP:RSN, where, as BM noted in the close, there are additional requirements; specifically, they state RfC's for classification should not be opened unless the source has been subject to repeat discussions. You say "past talk page discussions/disagreements were mentioned (naming a few)", but go on to list three article diffs (invalid) and one talk page discussion ... from 2008. BM's logic could not have been sounder. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• AirshipJungleman29, I just located Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Archive 1#Keraunos?? (2011 Talk page discussion), which is a previous discussion specifically about the source in question. There was 2 talk page discussion previously as well as several instances of disagreement. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Anything from within, say, the last decade that you can find by searching talk page archives for the word "Keraunos"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Sadly, no. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• WeatherWriter, It's seldom appropriate to post at WP:AN and I don't believe this case should have come here. They were fully right by closing it. My comments made weeks ago were simply an attempt to avoid wikipedia bureaucracy and continue the discussion there since it was already started. Noah, AA^Talk 10:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of closing this with the exact same reasoning, but BilledMammal beat me to it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion open at WT:RSN#Suggested changes to the edit notice to include the disclaimer about RFCs in the edit notice as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I pointed out that issue right after you opened the RFC. If the opportunity cost wasn't high I would have closed it then. Instead I hoped that you would have caught the hint and closed the RFC in favor of a discussion. Good close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with BilledMammal here. You don't need permission to find better sources to cite and to remove unreliable sources of information. Awesome Aasim 18:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO the close was a good move. If that is the only question, then a close review (or a bold reversal, maybe asking for an admin close) would be the next step. The way that you brought it up here (= neither of those) would be the way that you would bring up a conduct issue, and it certainly isn't that. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser privileges for election scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion over email that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Superpes15, Martin Urbanec, and Mykola solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2023 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Wug·a·po·des 18:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Temporary checkuser privileges for election scrutineers

Contentious topic help request

• Eshera assault (AfD discussion)
• Special:Permalink/1174498007

A second set of eyes on this, from Rosguill or other administrators experienced in the Eastern Europe contentious topics area, would be appreciated. Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Huston family

The facts are getting distorted: [8], [9], [10], [11]. 76.89.194.44 (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a copy of a report that is more properly at WP:ANI and WP:BLPN created by the same person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Another ARBPIA page created by a non-EC user

Zikim Beach massacre is a very problematic piece of ARBPIA content that was created by a non-EC user and appears to be extremely off-kilter with respect to WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. Judicious un-creation may be in order. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have deleted it and redirected to Battle of Zikim, where the content was covered anyway. I have dropped the editor a reminder about editing ARBPIA articles as well, as they clearly haven't understood that (or have ignored it). Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  The author does make the point that User:SunDawn reviewed the article and even praised him for it. Animal lover |666| 14:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a decent start to an article and was in no way problematic from a WP:V or NPOV perspective (it was well referenced to reliable sources). The question of why anyone would claim the article was problematic should be the concern here. Number 57 15:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In the current climate, such pages should be deleted immediately as a matter of course imo. Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And that's another view that should raise concerns IMO. Number 57 16:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess we should get rid of Deir_Yassin_massacre and redirect it to the Israeli War of Independence. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a synth-y affair replete with ample editorialisation, POV tone and a POV title, and supported by three fairly weak sources that barely seemed to verify let alone cross-verify most of the claims, and with nary an WP:RSP in sight. Pretty much exemplary of why EC protections exist over the CT area. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, you are the one who violates WP:NPOV and so on every article that doesn't align with your POV is automatically marked by you for deletion.

I provided three reliable sources from the biggest media networks in Israel. Each of the sources I added is considered reliable and has an article about it here on English Wikipedia. Sometimes, not all the information is translated into English and is only available within Hebrew sources, so I did the hard work and translated three reliable sources from Hebrew to English. So claiming that these sources are WP:RSP is another violation of WP:NPOV. Orwell1 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I am the original creator of this article. As I am now an ECM user, I am requesting the restoration of the article. Orwell1 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For anyone reading - you just made 320 edits consecutively adding the same category to articles. I'm not sure if this qualifies as 'gaming' EC (genuine question, I've seen people talk about EC gaming previously but not sure where the line is). Requesting further input from other administrators and pinging original deleting administrator Black Kite. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see we had the same thought at the same time. Revoked: Special:Redirect/logid/154419860, User talk:Orwell1 § Removal of extendedconfirmed^diff. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For God's sake, is there anything wrong with adding categories to articles after they have been double-checked and verified? Is there anything wrong with being a WikiGnome? Would you prefer me not to make these useful edits? I have lost my desire and willingness to contribute to this project since Iskandar323 started chasing after me and marking every single article I created for deletion. Just leave me alone. Orwell1 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Major source problem with Associated Press

It appears the Associated Press has removed all of their articles from the website from at least the year 2006 prior. Any Associated Press source that was dated in the year 2006 or prior will now link to PAGE UNAVAILABLE. This is a major problem as I'm sure many articles used Associated Press sources. I've actually contacted Associated Press about this and someone got back to me saying they've inquired with the operations team about it but until we get an update many of these sources will now link to page unavailable until it's addressed. It is of course possible that they may not bring them back at all, in which case we'll have to hope many archives exist on Way Back Machine, but it will be a pretty major job to go through all these dead links and archive them/recover as many links as we can. Inexpiable (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to run a search of references to establish/guesstimate the number of times it's used? By its nature, a lot of its articles would have been syndicated to other outlets. Serial 17:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

On the order of 3,300 articles have any source dating 2000 to 2006 using U.S. date format, and use apnews.com. Maybe somebody can improve this search for a more accurate answer (remove the prefix:A term for the full result).

"associated press" insource:/"apnews.com"/ insource:/date=(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) [0-9]+, 200[0-6]/ prefix:A

Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheers @Bri! Serial 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked the searches a bit; not perfect, but more accurate. Got a number closer to 950, with both mmdd and ddmm date formats and going back to 1990. The searches are in my sandbox, if useful. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a task for WP:URLREQ - I would suggest posting there. Galobtter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC: also since they do a lot of this kind of fixing. Galobtter (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)