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	9	28
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	17	41	58
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 145 sockpuppet investigations
• 64 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 62 requests for RD1 redaction
• 54 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 26 requested closures
• 126 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 17 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (23 out of 7757 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:BabcocksRhodeIsland1700s 2024-05-17 16:17 2024-05-24 16:17 move Don't move your User talk page except by a Renamer Liz User:MayNard Keith Batiste, Jr 2024-05-17 15:29 2024-05-31 15:29 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Komail Anam 2024-05-17 13:36 2024-11-17 13:36 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute, per WP:Articles_for_deletion/Komail_Anam OwenX 2024 Radboud University Nijmegen pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-05-17 02:44 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:Speedcore (Punk) 2024-05-16 23:02 2024-05-23 23:02 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Comedy Shorts Gamer 2024-05-16 18:08 indefinite edit,move This subject is still on WP:DEEPER and the title blacklist and should not have a standalone article without approval through DRV Pppery ComedyShortsGamer 2024-05-16 18:06 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Template:Fl. 2024-05-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2585 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Reform Zionism 2024-05-16 17:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Progressive Zionism 2024-05-16 17:46 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Nagyal 2024-05-16 17:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers British support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-16 12:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AIPIA Malinaccier Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan 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

Closure review request for the RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles

• RFC closure in question
• Discussion with closer

Closer: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: [1]

Reasoning: The issue the closer was to decide was whether Wikipedia should maintain complete, current lists of airlines and their destinations in articles about airports. In closing, they said the lists may only be included when reliable, independent, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. They also said on their talk page that they believe WP:NOT makes it clear that the threshold for inclusion for content that would normally not be part of the encyclopedia is inclusion in independent secondary sources. However, while such sources are required to show that a topic deserves its own article (WP:GNG), the same requirement cannot be applied to the content of an article (WP:NNC). Therefore, in order to avoid creating a new standard for content inclusion that is not rooted in policy, I believe the closure should directly state that per the consensus, the lists should not be included because of WP:NOT.

In addition, ScottishFinnishRadish wrote that their closure was partly based on a common thread that they had identified in people's comments. I believe there is a similar, longer thread in the RFC that actually supports the following idea: Individual routes can be described if reliable sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. Since my list of quotes from contributors to the RFC is somewhat long, here is a link to it in my sandbox.

In short, I think the first paragraph of the closure should be reworded as follows (my text in italics): "After reviewing the !votes and discussion, it is clear that there is consensus that airlines and destination tables should not be included in articles because of WP:NOT. Individual routes can be described if reliable sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. There is not a consensus for wholesale removal of such tables". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnya343 (talk • contribs)

• Superseded by my !vote below. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC non-participants (airlines and destinations RFC)

• Not a huge fan of this close either for the reasons you mentioned, but if it's overturned, it shouldn't be to a stronger consensus against inclusion; there's no such consensus present in the discussion. I find weighing the WP:NOT arguments so heavily in such a discussion unconvincing; we can choose what content we want to cover and WP:NOT wasn't handed down by god. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• I'm confused. The primary close line "airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE." seems rather novel. WP:DUE is mainly focused on neutrality (the first word in the section) and majority/minority/fringe opinions or interpretations, not something like a schedule, which is a hard, cold fact. I'm struggling to understand exactly how WP:DUE plays into whether or not an exhaustive list should or shouldn't be included, which is an editorial decision, based on whether WP:NOT applies or doesn't. Maybe it is just me, but again, I'm confused. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that might have intended to be a reference to WP:BALASP? People often conflate WP:DUE and WP:BALASP - I’m not actually sure why they are distinct, it would make sense to me to merge them into one. BilledMammal (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  While that (on the surface) looks closer to the situation, I don't think that was the intent in creating that policy. The entire policy it falls under is called "Neutral point of view", so I can't see the policy applies in any way, shape, or form, to the (dis)allowing a list of all flights. That appears to fall directly into WP:NOT. I'm not commenting on the merits at this point, I'm just saying I think it is a mistake to use any part of WP:NPOV as guidance in the close. Neutrality isn't at issue, the only issue would seem to be "is this level of detail appropriate, or not?" which exactly what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was created to define. The closer should be taking all the votes based on WP:NOT and deciding if they are appropriate interpretations of the policy, not only as written, but in spirit as well. I can't fathom how you can weigh neutrality in the inclusion. There may be other policy considerations, but anything related to NPOV (ie: DUE or BALASP) isn't one of them. Dennis Brown 2¢ 05:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would disagree with that; in my opinion as written BALASP clearly applies to all aspects of the article, even when those aspects - in the view of editors - are impartial.

  Indeed, BALASP says as much; For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. BilledMammal (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  But that is very different from a table of schedules, be it train/air/bus, or say a sports teams schedule, or other "hard facts" that can't possibly be "Not neutral". Describing isolated events, or select news reports CAN make an article biased. Obviously adding quotes or criticisms can skew the article and make it violate NPOV. Adding a schedule can not, in any way, skew the bias for or against the airline. This is why schedules are specifically not listed in the policy on Neutrality. It simply does not apply here. I see WP:DUE misused in this context by editors somewhat regularly, but not in a close. It's an honest mistake, but it is a mistake. Dennis Brown 2¢ 05:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  What I see NPOV doing is telling editors to follow the sources, in all aspects - even when editors believe that a certain aspect has no bearing on neutrality.

  For example, a recent dispute came by dispute resolution where editors were arguing how much prominence to give John De Lancie’s role in My Little Pony compared to his role in Star Trek. Both of those roles are “hard facts” that can’t possibly not be neutral, but to decide how much weight to give either in his article is based entirely on NPOV - to interpret NPOV otherwise would effectively turn resolving such a dispute into “which aspect do Wikipedians think is more important” rather than “which aspect do reliable sources think is more important”

  The same is true of schedules.

  However, these aspects can have a direct bearing on an articles neutrality. For example, giving excessive weight to “hard facts” can result in giving improperly low weight to important controversies - indeed, this is a common tool of the better paid editors, who don’t remove controversies but instead bury them in verifiable facts. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I will just leave it for now. I don't think they are the same, and obviously I think this is stretching WP:DUE too far to use in this particular instance. The issue at hand is one of appropriateness, not bias. Again, I have no comment on the merits of the discussion itself. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  DUE also mentions "aspects", but it's true that it focuses primarily on viewpoints. I would say that use of "DUE" as shorthand for "worth including in the article per the NPOV policy as a whole" is commonplace, and BALANCE is underused as a link, though one participant in the RfC did reference it specifically. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. A major part of the objection rationale is a declaration that GNG doesn't apply to article content. This reads as a non-sequitur, since GNG was not mentioned in the close. The guidance to rely primarily on sources that are secondary and independent is not restricted to GNG. It appears, for example, in our NPOV and OR policies and the RS guideline. These were all cited in the RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. This seems pretty clear cut. If someone is arguing that content should be included without regard for its weight in reliable secondary sources, that's a fundamental misunderstanding about how content is managed on Wikipedia and such !votes are not going to be taken seriously. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. The RfC asks whether airport articles should mention every single flight that the airport offers (no matter the way that the information is presented). The answer was very clearly "no" based on WP:NOT. I think the way the close was phrased is within closer discretion and that we should avoid micromanaging a close. That said, I read many of the !votes based on WP:NOT to be against inclusion of any tables at all, but that wasn't the question the RfC was asking. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Clarification: the tables list every destination, not every flight. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 08:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. The close is a reasonable summary of the consensus embodied by the RfC responses, and this is not a venue to re-litigate the arguments. Bon courage (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn based on Wikipedia policies. I was not involved in the RfC but I have studied it and discussed it since with several people.

The closer correctly noted the the Oppose/keep !voters were in the majority but made weak arguments. The closer then cited 3 policies in their decision to limit list items to those that are secondarily sourced. Lets look at what those 3 policies say:

1. WP:BURDEN: the lead sentences of WP:BURDEN, a section of WP:VERIFY, say

   • ”All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution.”
   • WP:PRIMARY, a section of WP:NOR, allows the use of primary sources to satisfy verifiability subject to criteria. There are 6 requirements; these are the ones salient to this discussion:

   • "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". These table's editors cite material directly from airlines and airports. Neither publishes fake destinations.
   • "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Destination information provided by airlines and airports consists of simple facts requiring no interpretation.
   • "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source…"
   • "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself…"
   • "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Destination tables make up <10% of most airport articles' text.

2. WP:ONUS, a section of WP:VERIFY, says:

   • ”While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

   • The majority of the !voters at the RfC said the tables were valuable
   • At the one article where Sunnya343 deleted a destination table, opposition to deletion was unanimous on the article talk page. The opposers found the table valuable.

3. WP:NOT. An RfC was conducted to specifically amend WP:NOT to exclude all transportation destination tables (not just airports):

   • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?

   • Outcome:"There is a clear consensus against the proposed addition to WP:NOTDIR."

   • WP:NOT does not exclude these tables.

As I see it, a majority supported inclusion and the closer misapplied the 3 policies they cited. Simple facts from reliable primary sources support simple facts in these accurate, very well-maintained tables. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have a few gripes with some of these points:

  Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. – Misuse in this context doesn't mean posting false information. It means drawing inappropriate conclusions based on the existence of primary sources. This would include the prominence of information in the article relative to its actual weight in reliable sources.

  Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself… – You cut off the second half of this sentence: instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Deciding that the content is important independently of its weight in reliable secondary sources is evaluation.

  Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. – You're correct that it's not the "entire article", but you ignore the portion about "large passages", which is critical here. The point of having that expectation is because we don't want primary sources to determine what type of content goes into the article. When primary sources are used (which should be sparingly), they should be in conjunction with secondary sources, not in a section of the article dependent exclusively on primary sources.

  The majority of the !voters at the RfC said the tables were valuable – Consensus is not determined by head-count, and it's not fair to say that consensus to include was reached.

  opposition to deletion was unanimous on the article talk page. – This is a valid point until it was overruled by the RfC. Site-wide consensus overrules WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

  WP:NOT does not exclude these tables. – That an RfC did not support a specific wording, in large part on procedural grounds, does not invalidate WP:NOTDIRECTORY, where the very first point disallows Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit.

  Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have a few gripes with some of those points:

  It means drawing inappropriate conclusions based on the existence of primary sources. This would include the prominence of information in the article relative to its actual weight in reliable sources. Every route announcement nowadays - and likely in the past as well - gets announced in the media somewhere. A mere mention in a table is probably exactly the amount of prominence the information needs to receive.

  Deciding that the content is important independently of its weight in reliable secondary sources is evaluation. We're getting really into the weeds here. Lots of factual information already on an airport article will already be sourced to primary sources, such as latitude and longitude, runway length, elevation... evaluation in this context does not mean inclusion.

  not in a section of the article dependent exclusively on primary sources. The assumption here is that every airline route article is primary, which is not the case.

  it's not fair to say that consensus to include was reached It's also not fair to say consensus to remove was reached. Furthermore, this discussion was about whether this information is encyclopaedic, and if it had advertised to the community which actively maintains the information a different consensus may have been reached, since many of us view it as encyclopedic.

  ...simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit - notwithstanding WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply here - we could deliver this information in prose, but it's far easier to understand and contextualise in a tabular format - this was rebutted in the RfC by the premise that destinations from shipping ports were routinely included in print encyclopedias, showing there is clearly encyclopedic merit to these tables. There are two valid arguments here: whether this is encyclopedic, and whether it is WP:NOT. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Finally, none of these are specifically about the close, but all get into a rehashing of the RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn per A. B., but also because the close was not supported by the discussion: out of over 50 participants, only a small number discussed sourcing, and fewer than five discussed sourcing to the level of detail to which the closer drew their conclusion. The easiest thing here would be to overturn to simple no consensus. (There are also a lot of users who gnome in this area who may not have been notified about the discussion, myself included.) SportingFlyer T·C 13:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. I agree with Bon courage that the close is a reasonable summary of the discussion. JBL (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn A closer is supposed to summarize the discussion. This doesn't mean counting votes, but counting votes can be pretty illuminating for which direction the discussion is going. Reading the discussion, there's a small but pretty clear majority for keeping the tables. It's possible for a sufficient policy-based reasoning to overcome this, but despite what the closer said, I'm not seeing it. Both sides appear to be making policy-based arguments: the argument that a piece of information has encyclopedic value and therefore it should be kept is not merely WP:ILIKEIT, it's a perfectly reasonable argument against deleting a piece of content. A second reason I doubt either side was making non-policy compliant arguments is that there were several admins and lots of long-standing users on both sides of this argument, which implies that neither side was ignorant of policy. It feels to me like the closer made a WP:SUPERVOTE because the "no" arguments were more convincing to them personally rather than closing based on the actual discussion. Loki (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Here are a few !votes from the slim majority to include the tables:

  • The tables are fine if they are based in secondary sources rather than original research using booking systems and the like. Secondary sources
  • Yes, the tables should stay – from a user standpoint, I've found them very helpful.
  • Yes. WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns.
  • Yes.

  The "common thread" quotes in my close were all from those supporting inclusion. This is why counting bolded votes is not illuminating in many cases. Additionally, some supporting inclusion cited WP:READERSFIRST, which is an essay, not a policy or guideline. WP:Closing discussions is pretty clear that arguments based on policies get more weight, and responses based on personal opinion only or that show no understanding of the matter of issue should be discarded. Arguments based in part on personal opinion or rebutted by policy based arguments should be weighed less than those with a strong policy basis. I covered this in the close, explaining why some responses were downweighted. The arguments based on encyclopedic value without any evidence are strongly rebutted by those citing NPOV/DUE while discussing using sources to establish weight states The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered. So stating "it's encyclopedic and should be included" while not providing any rationale that rebuts the requirement that sources be provided to demonstrate something is DUE and meets NPOV is a weak argument. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Only one user cited WP:DUE and only one user cited WP:NPOV, out of over 50 participants, without any substantive discussion of how either apply!! SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  1. demonstrating that they are not significant enough to merit inclusion in an article - link to NPOV/BALASP
  2. Yes, airport articles should include such tables when including a table would be due - invokes DUE
  3. Of course, all the usual guidelines relating to weight and reliable referencing (I'm thinking specifically of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) should still be considered, - invokes DUE
  4. Also if no other sources are describing this information, beyond primary sources, then are they WP:DUE. links to DUE
  5. I cannot see how these lists/tables of the airlines/destinations serviced by an airport provide so much utility and encyclopedic value as to override our policies on indiscriminate info, NOTDB, BALANCE, NOTNEWS, and OR. WP:BALANCE is part of NPOV
  6. WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns links to NPOV
  7. So we get WP:NOTABILITY, WP:UNDUE, etc. weighing in too. links to UNDUE
  8. TMI is a WP:ESSAY, WP:NPOV is a WP:POLICY. link to NPOV

  These are some of the explicit mentions. There's also plenty of discussion that covers the same ground without explicitly invoking or linking. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Whether or not arguments based on encyclopedic value are rebutted by other policies at all, let alone strongly, is a matter for the discussion. Encyclopedic value, while a somewhat vague idea, is definitely not any of the list of things WP:DISCARD says should be discarded. It's not a personal opinion nor does it show no understanding of the issue because it's clearly intended as a counterargument to the principle behind WP:NOT.

  Whether it's a strong counterargument to WP:NOT or not is a matter of how convincing that argument is to the participants in the discussion. It's your job as closer to represent the conclusion the discussion reached on that and not your own opinion. I can't see any way of reading that discussion that concludes that it reached the consensus you're drawing. Loki (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse, despite the problems In vague terms this tightens up the criteria a bit which IMO is the result of the RFC. And IMO such is the right decision based on a complex application of several policies and guidelines, one which would be too complex to put into or derive into a close. The "despite the problems" is because I agree there were many problems in the details of the close, as pointed out in this review. North8000 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Overturn Reversed my earlier position. Establishing WP:Due as a criteria to decide what is either a wp:not or wp:notability question is just too big of a mess to leave this in. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn and/or relist Numerous RFCs (as noted below have argued for inclusion. Furthermore, a sizable majority !voted to keep. Both sides have valid points. If the someone finds the minority opinion more valid than the majority opinion, that's fine. However, they shouldn't close a well-reasoned discussion as "The consensus is <the minority opinion>". If you have invalid opinions expressed as "Support/Oppose because the moon is cheese" or other such nonsense, it's reasonable to discount such opinions. But unless there are such opinions, a small minority opinion should never be listed as the "consensus". At best, this is a no consensus or keep as-is. Buffs (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  My count was roughly 6 not support or oppose, 26 oppose bolded, 33 support bolded, so not a sizable majority. An example of an unbolded response is The tables are fine if they are based in secondary sources rather than original research using booking systems and the like. Some excerpts from the supports include the examples I quoted in my close:

  1. articles should include such tables when including a table would be due
  2. all the usual guidelines relating to weight and reliable referencing (I'm thinking specifically of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) should still be considered
  3. WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns

  This is why we don't close discussions with vote tallies. We have to read the full discussion to see that almost every vote wasn't a direct one or the other choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  So...by definition, if it was close, there wasn't a consensus (33 of 65 !votes is BARELY a majority and I think you're being a little generous to the support side), especially when you consider many other previous RFCs on the subject. If you found one side more convincing, you should have expressed your opinion and added it to the discussion. Perhaps you could have convinced others to change their opinion. Buffs (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Responses with a strong basis in policy are weighed more heavily than those without. Responses without are down weighted, and responses that don't make pertinent arguments are discarded. Here's some examples from the RFC:

  • Yes - this is one of the key aspects of airports, namely what connections to other airports they have. If the info is only embedded in prose, the risk of outdated creep increases. was weighed down because it did not address those citing WP:DUE, The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered and WP:NPOV, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Nothing was provided to demonstrate that this is a key aspect provided in sources.
  • With my reader hat on, definitely yes - these are surprisingly useful. With my editor hat on, there is an obvious "...assuming they can be sourced", but this should not be difficult in most cases. Their view as a reader is downweighted for the reasons of the earlier example. Although this falls into the slim majority of supports, it also calls for sourcing.
  • Yes. WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns. Making a blanket rule banning such information is unnecessary WP:CREEP. This is also included in the slim majority of supports, but invokes NPOV, so it is weighed heavily, but for requiring sourcing for inclusion.
  • Yes. That was the whole thing. Discarded per WP:Closing discussions.
  • Yes The routes for an airport are sensible content and, per WP:CREEP, what we don't need are petty rules to micro-manage the form of presentation. Downweighted as personal opinion on the content with no basis in policy.

  There are many more examples across the RFC of responses that made policy based arguments and were weighed more heavily, and that did not and were not.

  WP:Closing discussions says If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, If a large portion are making no argument from policy and a smaller portion are citing policy to support their position then we go with the controlling policy that has more support. The bolded !votes also don't represent a binary of blanket supporting inclusion or opposing inclusion.

  Lastly, I don't see an RFC from six years ago with less than half of the participation that was about the notability of list articles as controlling over this RFC. Additionally, WP:CCC. It's also worth noting that the issue 6 year old RFC wasn't raised at three RFC in question. As no one used it as a basis for their argument it should not be considered when closing. At this point it's introducing a new argument in the challenged RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wow...with that expansion on your prior statement, I can see how you came to that conclusion, which I find to be inappropriate. People who cite specific policies you give extra weight = more weight? Those that don't cite it were downweighted? How would you treat a comment like "I agree with <user X>". Downweighted? They might be citing someone who made a valuable argument with policies, but you're dismissing them due to brevity. You openly admit that you downweighted based on someone citing WP:Creep which, while an opinion piece, summarizes both the logic AND applicable policies. It's common shorthand to prevent repetition and unnecessary walls of text. Just because someone used logic, but didn't cite a specific policy doesn't mean they are wrong or their opinion should be given less weight. Many were answering questions posed in the initial request.

  What part of Wikipedia:Closing discussions says to "downweight" !votes that are simplistic like "Yes"? or upgrade opinions that link to policies? Just because someone uses their own logic that IS well-rooted in policy/guidelines/prior consensus but doesn't mention the specific policy doesn't mean their opinion should be downgraded any more than someone with poor logic but links to a policy should be given more weight.

  How does citing Wikipedia:Closing discussions in your rationale bolster your argument? It's not a policy or guideline either.

  You've clearly downweighted !votes with valid, logical concerns and discarded at least 5 prior RfCs which came to a contrary conclusion.

  I strongly urge you to redo your analysis and/or reopen it. Buffs (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  What part of Wikipedia:Closing discussions says to "downweight" !votes that are simplistic like "Yes"? or upgrade opinions that link to policies? That would be the section WP:DISCARD, which reads in part The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing in that list validates downgrading those who cite WP:CREEP:

  • those that flatly contradict established policy - Nothing in WP:CREEP contradicts policy
  • those based on personal opinion only - This is a logical argument, not merely opinion such as "I think it looks pretty" or a simplistic "this is better"
  • those that are logically fallacious - It isn't logically fallacious
  • and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. - Clearly they understand the matter.

  Buffs (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  This kind of goal-post shifting is not endearing. You asked a question rhetorically, and it had a straightforward answer that disagrees with the point you were trying to make. Maybe you should have asked a different question, or maybe you shouldn't have asked a rhetorical question at all, but the civilized thing to do at this point is to admit the error, not throw a bunch of shouty bullet points and pretend you said something different. --JBL (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  JBL, if you are going to take organized thoughts as "shouting", perhaps you don't need to respond. Long streams of prose that don't apply (as I illustrated) were all from your post, not mine and waste time to dispel/address. If you don't want a response to them, don't respond. So let's go back through and summarize:

  • I very clearly stated "What part of Wikipedia:Closing discussions says to 'downweight' !votes that are simplistic like 'Yes'? or upgrade opinions that link to policies?" That was not rhetorical.
  • You gave a long quote from WP:DISCARD
  • I pointed out that the closer openly discarded opinions citing WP:CREEP (that would be the "like 'Yes'" I mentioned) and that nothing in what you stated justified such actions
  • You claim that this is "moving the goalposts" without justifying how...apparently in an attempt to waste time while at the same time throwing around personal accusations to imply I'm being uncivil. You already have a track record of tossing insults around. Let's not continue that. I asked for the opinion of the closer, so let's see what he has to say. Buffs (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is not the organization, it's the heavy-handed use of bold, widely recognized as one of the ways people shout on the internet: see WP:SHOUT.

  Here is what is missing in your response to me: You gave a long quote from WP:DISCARD [which unambiguously answered your question, demonstrating that WP:DISCARD does contain such advice]. I [completely ignored this and its impact on my argument, and instead changed the subject by talking about WP:CREEP, which was not part of the question you answered]. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CONSENSUS, the policy at hand says In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever... any of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. It also says, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

  All arguments should be weighed by the closer based on policies and guidelines. A discussion in the proper location with double the editors of an earlier discussion overrides that discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Gotcha, so now you're changing your standards to WP:CONSENSUS and not Wikipedia:Closing discussions after being challenged...that's fun/convenient. Fine, we'll discuss that...

  If your standard is "All arguments should be weighed by the closer based on policies and guidelines", that's not ALL you're supposed to do. You're also supposed to "consider the quality of the arguments..." You already said you downgraded those who cited WP:CREEP because it isn't a policy or guideline, but it CITES policy and guidelines in its argument. You've definitely and openly discounted multiple valid !votes. Buffs (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  This was a mess of an RfC. I appreciate ScottishFinnishRadish wading into it and trying to make sense of it, even if I disagree with his conclusion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I appreciate the effort for sure. My only question is the accuracy. Re-opening this would make the most sense. Buffs (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I favor over-turning the RfC as “no consensus” and then just leaving the topic alone for 1-2 years to give people a break. No relisting.

  This particular RfC as written and then as subsequently understood by others had issues as noted in this discussion. It should not be relisted without rewriting. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC participants (airlines and destinations RFC)

• There's been several discussions following the close, and although I don't agree with all of them the restriction on PRIMARY sources seems off to me. Before commenting at the RFC a check several tables and the sourcing for many of them was bad. Certainly such tables need proper sourcing (especially after they have been challenged), but I don't see why this can't be from a primary source (as long as it's a stable reliable source). Yes there's a separate discussion on whether they are due in the article if they are not mentioned in secondary sources, but that's separate from if they can be sourced from primary sources. That specific part of the close appears to merge those two separate points into one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is what I was getting at. User:A.B. explained in dispute resolution that primary sources are acceptable for this type of information - Airline X flies from city A to city B - and I agree with their analysis. The close of this RFC is confusing because it makes it seem as though a piece of information requires independent secondary sourcing to show that it can be included in an article. This May, Condor will begin a flight from San Antonio to Frankfurt, San Antonio's first nonstop service to Europe. Naturally there are only WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources about this route currently. Does that mean this flight does not meet WP:DUE and should not be mentioned in the article on the San Antonio airport? Sunnya343 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well once it is reported in a newspaper, rather than just an airline or airport website, then we get a secondary source. Once there is more than one of these, the close statement says it can be included. That is fair enough in my opinion, and I endorse the close. (even though my vote would have supported weaker inclusion criteria). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  A newspaper article is not always a secondary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed newspaper content is most usually primary (and where it isn't, it's quite often not very reliable). WP:SECONDARY content is characterized by analysis, synthesis and commentary directed to primary material, and is not secondary simply by being an extra 'layer'. That is a very common misconception on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  And it's a misconception that was pervasive in the RFC, which is why it was closed wrongly and why Sunny has been applying it inappropriately. There was consensus support for keeping the tables but adding more independent sources beyond the airlines' timetables (which prior discussions found to be acceptable), even if misstated by some in the RFC as secondary/primary. Reywas92^Talk 21:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Information in an article should be weighted by it's inclusion in secondary sources. So if no secondary sources has ever reported on such information it probably shouldn't be included. But this is a separate issue to referencing.
  To put it mote distinctly for this specific issue. Secondary sources are needed to show that there should be a table at all, but the entries in that table should be able to use primary sources for referencing. The former is a discussion on article content, the latter is to show the data is verifiable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I see, thank you for the clarification. Though I have a question about Secondary sources are needed to show that there should be a table at all. Practically speaking, how do we apply this idea to the lists? Do you need to find a secondary source that mentions all or most current flights? Or do you need to cite a secondary source for each destination, over 50% of the destinations, etc.?

  Those questions made me think of something else as well. The objective of the tables is to list every airline and destination that an airport currently has. Isn't it paradoxical to talk about the need for secondary sources, which [provide] thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event, for a list that is only accurate as of today's date?

  I'm starting to feel like I have to do mental gymnastics to explain the relevance of WP:NPOV to this debate, whereas the WP:NOT argument is much more clear. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Secondary sources need to show that destination data is relevant. You don't necessarily need them for each exact detail, primary sources could be used for that. So no you don't need secondary sources to mention all flights and destinations.
  The objective of the article is to show what is relevant balanced by secondary sources, any objective of the table has to start from that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  I might still be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that it is OK to cite a primary source (like an airline timetable) for the individual destinations, but you need a secondary source to show that the entire table has encyclopedic significance? Would you mind explaining how, say, the Heathrow Airport table should be sourced based on what you said? I don't see where you would cite the secondary source if you are citing primary sources for all the destinations. (Sorry if it seems like I'm badgering you, but I believe clarity is needed here, or else I do not know how to implement the RFC close as written.) Sunnya343 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think your misunderstanding comes from being unable to unlink the requirement for secondary sources from referencing. Referencing is there for the purpose of verification, and a primary source could be used for that.
  The secondary sources could be used for referencing, or they could be used in a talk page discussion on whether the table is due or not. They are required to show that the destination from Heathrow are something that people outside of Wikipedia care about, they shouldn't necessarily be required for the purposes of verification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Or a more simple explanation. The secondary sources are need for the "should it be in the article?" part (due), it should be allowable to use primary or secondary sources in the "is it verifiable?" part (referencing). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Understood. What you're saying is that, for instance, secondary sources show that the first flight from Las Vegas to Asia is due ([2], [3]), but I can cite a primary source in the article to verify that fact ([4]). That makes sense.

  However, I still think this idea is difficult to apply to the tables of destinations. Secondary sources by their nature are published some time after events occur; they look back in time and draw on primary sources to comment on those events. They identify which details ended up being more significant than others in the long run. For example, our article on the war in Gaza is pretty much entirely based on primary sources. In 20 years, by which time numerous secondary sources on the war will be available, some of the facts in that article may be removed or given less weight based on their prominence in those secondary sources. Pardon me if I appear to be lecturing you.

  With regard to the subject of this RFC, it is unclear to me what sort of secondary source could be found to show that a particular list should be in an article. Maybe you can find a source that discusses the growth of Heathrow's air service during the 2010s or the development of the British Airways hub over the years. But is it possible to find a secondary source that contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of Heathrow's current destinations? I know I'm repeating myself, but that seems inherently impossible.

  ScottishFinnishRadish, I know we have bothered you enough regarding this RFC, but would you mind commenting on our debate about the bolded portion of the close? Since you as the closer wrote it, you would be able to tell us what exactly you meant and how we would apply it to a particular airport's table. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Revised 16:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  No sorry I'm obviously still explaining bit poorly. Secondary sources are needed to show that the table should exist in the article at all, this is completely independent of any particular flight or destination.
  My point is similar to the notability standards for a stand alone list article. You have to show that the list article is notable, and that requires secondary sourcing. But the entries on that list don't need secondary sourcing they just need to be verifiable.
  The secondary sources just needs to say that destinations from Heathrow are something of note, not reflect on current destinations from Heathrow.
  As to up to the minute content there is no requirement for Wikipedia to carry this, Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source. But that's a separate discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  In regard to WP:NLIST, this comparison wades into the territory of notability, which independent secondary sources are required to demonstrate. Here we are talking about content. More specifically, we are discussing the maintenance of current destination data, which I believe falls within the ambit of WP:NOT, not WP:NPOV.

  Even if we accept the idea that you just need secondary sources to say that Heathrow's destinations are significant, I would disagree. For any airport in the world, you will likely find a source that discusses the extent of its service (though still, at a particular moment in time). For Heathrow you may find one that says the airport has destinations on all six inhabited continents, etc. I don't think that's enough to justify the inclusion of a complete, constantly updated list of destinations. Maybe that is what you alluded to when you commented on up to the minute content. This is what the WP:NOT arguments address.

  Also, if we were to apply the above idea to the Heathrow list, you would be able to create a new article entitled "List of destinations from Heathrow". But I don't think any of our stand-alone list articles are constantly being revised, with editors adding and subtracting content to remain up-to-date (as you would when Virgin Atlantic begins flights to Bangalore or British Airways stops flying to Funchal from Heathrow). Even with List of presidents of the United States, you are just adding a person every four years.

  (By the way, my example of the first flight from Las Vegas to Asia applied to an event that I would describe in the history section of the article, not a data point in the Airlines and Destinations table.) Sunnya343 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's why I used it as an example, it's not meant to be exactly what I'm saying. As to content in general it should be based on all significant views published by reliable sources. Policies are overlapping, so just because something falls under one policy doesn't mean it isn't also under another. Finally you are discussing maintenance of the tables, I am discussing both the maintenance and the requirement for having them. My statement of 'up to the minute' was in reply to you example of Wikipedia's war reporting, where editors take to using Telegram channels as sources so the absolute latest details can be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse I find the reasoning of this close review unconvincing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, the nominator has suggested banning the tables altogether, which would go against the consensus of the RFC, which was actually to maintain the tables but with more sources. Reywas92^Talk 21:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: I think you have a point. Let's say that a list meets the requirement for inclusion specified in the RFC close. That means you have appropriately referenced items on a list - e.g. British Airways flies from Heathrow to Aberdeen, Abuja, Accra, ... - as opposed to the description of a particular viewpoint on evolution, or a paragraph discussing John De Lancie's role in My Little Pony to take BilledMammal's example. Does WP:DUE truly apply to the inclusion of data points? Sunnya343 (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• @Firefangledfeathers: What I was trying to say was that our policies do not require independent secondary sources for a fact to be included in an article. It appeared to me that the requirement for such sources in the close was similar to WP:GNG.

  I recently sought dispute resolution after facing opposition to my removal of one of these lists. Due to the wording of the close, the discussion at DRN boiled down not to whether the list violated WP:NOT, but to whether the [list was] attributed to reliable secondary sources. As I said, however, no policy requires content to be attributed to secondary sources. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Response to A.B.'s stance: What I do believe is accurate in the close is Addressing the arguments, the strongest and by far most common argument put forth by those opposed to the tables is WP:NOTALLSORTSOFSTUFF. I do not seek to rehash arguments, just to summarize what people specifically said regarding WP:NOT. We argued that airport articles should not provide a:
  • Directory of current airline services from an airport
  • News service that documents the launch and discontinuation of every flight in order to remain up-to-date
  • Database of all presently operational flights: Essentially an attempt to duplicate the content of a database like Flightradar24
  • Travel guide: Though this is probably not the intention of most editors, the lists can be viewed as travel guides due to the emphasis on providing readers with a list of every city currently accessible via nonstop or same-plane, one-stop flights, and which airlines operate those flights

The closer added that There were also no strong arguments against the interpretation of WP:NOT, other than disagreement that it should apply. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

To this I would respond:

• Salience: The fundamental measure of a commercial airport is the extent of its service (airlines and destinations) and passenger/cargo volume.

• London Heathrow Airport and Los Angeles International Airport are known for their large volume of travelers and their extensive number of passenger destinations.

• Not their: parking, history, appearances in popular culture or bicycle access.

• Memphis International Airport and Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport are two of the world's most important cargo airports because of their cargo volume, number of destinations and carriers.

• Experience shows these tables are maintained and diligently kept current by the editors who enjoy this sort of editing. Over many years, I've found this to be true of not just of major hubs but even tiny airports in truly remote places.

• I find them more reliable than most Wikipedia content. God bless our wikignomes.

• Other information in airport articles also relies on primary sources (passenger traffic, runway length, etc.) from the airports themselves or government air traffic control agencies.
• Secondary sources for airport passenger service -- mostly local news coverage -- are spotty and less reliable. They seldom exist at all for cargo service.
• These tables meet the notability requirements of WP:NLIST. Like many lists, they convey easily understood information in a compact manner.
• WP:NOT does not directly address transportation destinations. An RfC to add them was defeated by the Wikipedia community.

• An RfC like that one on a basic policy establishes a higher level of consensus (WP:CONLEVEL) than an RfC on a set of airport articles, just as an airport RfC trumps local consensus at an article.

• An RfC administrative review should be based on policy, not ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT. The RfC closure misapplied our policies with regards to WP:PRIMARY

• These primary-sourced lists are consistent with the policies discussed here -- WP:NOT, WP:NLIST, WP:CONLEVEL, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ONUS, WP:DUE, WP:BURDEN.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC) (and tweaked 04:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC))

This would have been a good response at the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I was unaware of the RfC so I didn't comment. I agree with your comment in the RfC that you were presented with weak policy arguments on the keep side. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

People wrote in the RFC that it is possible to discuss an airport's air service without supplying an exhaustive, constantly updated list of destinations. Indeed, the closer noted that There were also arguments that the tables provide an idea of how well served or active an airport is, but those arguments were weakened by pointing out that the context could be provided in prose.

The claim that WP:NOT does not directly address transportation destinations is rebutted by The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. Naturally, a policy cannot be expected to address every possible circumstance. What people did in this RFC was apply the principles expressed in WP:NOT to this particular situation. Regarding the RFC on amending WP:NOTDIR, I concur with Thebiguglyalien's statement above.

I agree with you about other information in airport articles also relying on primary sources. This is the point I am trying to make: the RFC close implies that information requires secondary sourcing to be included, even though no policy says that. I see no problem with mentioning the length of an airport's runway or how many passengers it handled in 2023, and citing a primary source. However, that is very different from the subject of the RFC, which violates WP:NOT according to the consensus. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Putting the context in prose instead of tables means there is less information and the articles are less useful for the countless people who rely on them to see a well-presented list about the airport's core purpose. I agree that the RFC close requiring "secondary sources" is wrong and against policy, but that would be incorrect to say there was a consensus the tables violate NOT. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This was not mentioned in the close, but several people in the RFC talked about the importance of taking a long-term, historical view on Wikipedia, which as an encyclopedia is a tertiary source. Therefore, in the context of a Wikipedia article, perhaps the history of an airport - rather than a snapshot of its current destinations - is its most important aspect. This includes the history of its air service, such as the establishment of hubs or the first international flight. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Sunnya343, you make a good point about the history of airports service although that doesn't have to come at the expense of current information.

• Articles can note major changes as you've noted above: first international flights, hub status, etc.
  • Many airports already do this
  • Granularity: I don't think we need to note some airline added a flight from Adelaide Airport to Wellington Airport and then cancelled it later that year.
• Wikisavvy readers and future historians can make use of our edit histories to capture a detailed list of an airport's destinations and airline service at a given points in time. The refs will help, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus or that destination tables should be included, not OP's request – would endorse the RFC close rather than accepting OP's proposal, as the close does not mean that the tables must be removed. There was in no way a consensus in the discussion to remove/restrict usage of destination tables broadly, with a clear majority preferring to keep the tables, nor to require non-primary/truly secondary sources to be used, which contradicts policy and the usage and intent on primary source guidelines. While there was some support for the use of independent sources beyond just those published by the airport (or the airlines, which are independent of the airport, the articles' subjects), there was no basis to restrict those in the broad category of WP:PRIMARY, which even includes independent news reporting of airline activities but falls short of "generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information", which is not really possible for such straightforward factual information. This closure (and the OP's application of it) twisted the reasons for avoiding primary sources, certain types of which may have the disadvantages of "propaganda...omit...overstate...prejudices...unaware". However, these cases – the simple facts of which airlines fly where – fall under WP:PRIMARYCARE: "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to Wikipedia articles, but only in the form of straightforward descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." Further, sources used in these tables (both airline statements and new reporting that incorporates them) comply with WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: "authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher". The closure's mandate on the type of sources to be used is simply inconsist with the relevant guidelines. The OP points to WP:DUE, which is about maintaining neutrality and not overemphasizing fringe viewpoints, and is not relevant here. However, there is plainly substantial independent media coverage of airline routes, particularly when new destinations are announced, providing enough attention and relevance to an airport's destinations as a whole. It is also eminently clear that WP:NOT does not prohibit listing flight destinations, something that has been supported in longstanding consensuses at VPP, Wikiproject Airports, and individual airport articles. These tables are not a directory, not a news service, not a database, and not a travel guide. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. I saw SFR's close summary of the "DUE" arguments as a restatement of the NPOV--in particular BALASP--concerns raised by participants, to be used as a reminder that this info really should be sourced to secondary independent media rather than current destination lists on airport websites etc. Although not explicitly stated, this made sense to me as an obvious distinction between the basic, integral material for which we generally consider primary SELF-PUB sources acceptable (e.g. a lot of the stuff that goes in infoboxes gets sourced to the subject's own websites) and the material we don't consider so fundamental that it should be in every article on the topic without any individual indication of secondary independent attention. I think the NOT arguments were what actually designated this material as "non-essential", while the NPOV arguments simply emphasize what that means in this case: destination lists are not exempt from our standard policy of following that specific subtopic's treatment in IRS. If exhaustive, up-to-date lists of destinations are not considered salient enough to receive IRS coverage, then that presentation of the data should not be in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Absolutely, independent sources should be incorporated, but please note the dicussion above regarding the misuse of "primary" and "secondary" in that just because a source is independent new coverage, it is not necessarily "analysis", but this is not the kind of source or facts that needs such special care to avoid disadvantages of propaganda, omission, or overstatement. Your original !vote cited Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them., but that's from Wikipedia:No original research which also says A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge., which is the case here, including independent sources that aren't truly secondary. Reywas92^Talk 22:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn, either to No Consensus, or to Relist.
  • I am involved, not because I participated in the RFC, which I did not, but because I started to mediate a dispute at DRN over the removal of airline and destination tables from Harry Reid International Airport. I determined that some of the editors were acting in accordance with the close of the RFC, and some of the editors disagreed with the close of the RFC. DRN is not a forum to dispute the close of an RFC, and the RFC had established a binding rough consensus. So I closed the DRN case, advising the editors either to accept the rough consensus or seek to overturn the RFC. So here we are. (See, or do not see, Job 38:35.)
  • I am seldom inclined to overturn a close, either at DRV or of an RFC, but I think that the close was not consistent with the discussion. The closer had a difficult job to do. By my count, there were 31 Yes !votes, 28 No !votes, and 6 statements of some intermediate view, and one of the intermediate statements said that the lists should only be included if they were derived from reliable secondary sources. Other intermediate statements said that the RFC was poorly stated , which is correct, and should be closed. That is No Consensus, which is always an unsatisfying result, and the closer was in good faith trying to tease a consensus out of it. However, although the conclusion to include the lists of airlines and destinations only when based on reliable secondary sources was based on policy, some of the Yes statements and most of the No statements were also based on policy. The closer reached a conclusion that amounted to a supervote because they were trying to find a consensus when there was none.
  • The close should be overturned either to No Consensus or to Relist. If the RFC is relisted, it should be reworded, and the closer's conclusion of including lists of airlines and destinations when based on reliable secondary sources may be added as an option. Including the lists of airlines and destinations based on reliable primary sources has been mentioned by User:A.B., and maybe should also be in the revised RFC.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, could you explain why you think the RFC was poorly stated? /gen Sunnya343 (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Sunnya343 - Some editors complained that it was not clear whether the RFC was asking if lists of airlines and destinations were allowed or required. On further review, I personally think that the RFC was asking whether they should be allowed. It should be clear that they will not be required, on the principle that stubs and other incomplete articles that can be expanded are generally allowed. I have crossed out one phrase. The question should be reworded because it was clear to some editors and unclear to others. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse - Solely because I have to reject the CR Review's proposal as raised the requestor Sunnya343 states as part of the reason to Overturn the closure: I think the first paragraph of the closure should be reworded as follows (my text in italics): "After reviewing the !votes and discussion, it is clear that there is consensus that airlines and destination tables should not be included in articles because of WP:NOT. In re-reading all of the RfC responses, I don't see support for this polarised revision, it is not supported in the RfC. Now could SFR's statement being improved? Always! (as an aside, could I also thank SFR for his efforts, hopefully this thread isn't reading as a persecution/criticism for your efforts). I am exceedingly interested in SportingFlyer & A._B.'s suggested revisions to the Closing Statement to help increase its value/definitiveness and their logical approach in this discussion is impressive. This explicit request for CR Review to be revised to include this phrase is a binary No in my view; the proposed revising would not be appropriate/supported at all. The other (excellent contributions by multiple well-experienced contributors) in this thread/discussion are all excellent, but many feel to me to be rehashing the RfC topic at hand, *not* the proposed CR Review as stated. To restate in simple terms: This request for reviewing & revising the RFC Closure is not supported by Sunnya343's statement of "[...] airlines and destination tables should not be included in articles because of WP:NOT". DigitalExpat (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Overturn (and by Overturn I mean nullify/relist as a new RFC) - Changing my vote as it was reacting to the lack of request for CR not following the wikipedia template (lack of neutrality/inserting suggested revisions in the reason section). I believe it was a (very) good faith misapplication of policies by the closer on a RfC that was imperfectly started (as highlighted by many respondents), the request for CR which was imperfectly crafted (non-neutral), and a topic that has been on the verge of WP:FORUMSHOP with previous RfC's being similarly ill-crafted (eg: RfC's are not to be multiple choice questions). I believe the RfC closure could have better applied WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and WP:NOT instead of the way WP:PRIMARY was cited. I am definitely a biased participant in both the topic, the RfC, and now this closure. So I believe it would be the most prudent for me to suggest an Overturn based on my above points indicating a lack of strong WP:CON and suggest the root reason for lack of consensus be well considered by impartial 3rd parties (What is actually being challenged/asked for comment on here that is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT (please see my other comment) ahead of any additional formal action or RFC on the topic to be considered. A sincere thank you to all who have contributed in this/these threads! DigitalExpat (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Relist - per Robert McClenon. As the person who posted the RFC, I was admittedly unwilling to seriously entertain the concerns that people raised about it while it was taking place. The biggest problem seems to be how the RFC question was phrased. Trovatore, Horse Eye's Back, and others brought this up in the RFC. For example, it appears that some contributors thought the RFC was about how the destinations should be presented: table vs. prose. In the present closure review, I see that Voorts wrote that [they] read many of the !votes based on WP:NOT to be against inclusion of any tables at all, but that wasn't the question the RfC was asking, and A. B. said that the RFC question mentioned flights as opposed to destinations.

  For a controversial issue like this one that affects a large number of articles, it is important to have a discussion centered around a clearly worded question that everyone understands - so we know everyone is answering the same question. Therefore, I support relisting the RFC and working with A. B., SportingFlyer, and any other interested party to design a properly worded RFC on these tables. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I’m happy to help. I suggest any new RfC be listed at T:CENT if it wasn’t the last time. Despite your efforts, too many people didn’t know about the RfC. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  On further thought, I recommend overturning and just leaving all this alone for a year or two to give the broader community a break.

  We've just had the RfC itself, a dispute resolution discussion, a trip to ANI and now this discussion. This follows 5 previous discussions between 2015 and 2022 (see list below). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Such a postponement sounds reasonable. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn, relist, get more input, and close in a way that doesn't invent new policy. Generally agree with A. B.'s analysis, desite some quibbles by Thebigguyalien. Have to go to jury duty, so can't comment further until tonight.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Back now. In more detail, "drawing inappropriate conclusions based on the existence of primary sources ... would include the prominence of information in the article relative to its actual weight in reliable sources" is not correct, and cannot be. The first idea is from WP:NOR and is about WP:SYNTH in particular, the second is from WP:NPOV and is about WP:WEIGHT in particular. Notions and phrases from them cannot be mixed and matched to invent new policies out of nowhere (talk about "original research"!). Presenting a table of sourced facts about flights is not "drawing ... conclusions" of any kind, and no due or undue weight is given either way, because there are not two sets of sources presenting conflicting claims that have to be weighed against each other. I suspect that Thebigguyalien was trying to make some sort of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE argument, but that's the same section as WP:NOT#DB, and that's what the RfC was about; this is not the place to relitigate "this should be covered by WP:NOT#DB" arguments that were insufficiently persuasive in the RfC. The rest of Thebigguyalien's objections have been adequately addressed by SportingFlyer, so I won't regurgitate them.

  Honestly, I tend to lean toward the view that our articles should not have such tables and that NOT#DB should cover them, but did not notice the RfC in time to partipate, [Edit: I did, and forgot! Moved my comment to the involved section.] But the purpose of an AN review of a closure is not to re-argue the case, but only to determine whether the closer properly applied understanding of policy in assessing the discussion results, and in this close that was not the case, so it should be overturned and probably re-opened for additional discussion which might being about a clearer result.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• I will say that there are a number of us frustrated with the close of this RfC for the complete opposite grounds of the user initiating this review for several different reasons, and that this user may have initiated the RfC review in order to preempt us from doing so. My ground is that the closer reached a conclusion not supported by the discussion (few people talked about primary/secondary sources in the review, only one discussed WP:DUE) and I believe another argument is that the conclusion goes against WP:PRIMARY sourcing as WP:DUE does not discuss primary sources, but honestly that is not my argument to present, and we weren't quite ready. I don't know if this precludes us from opening a different RfC review now considering how odd this situation is. SportingFlyer T·C 12:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I would be advocating for the entire discussion to be overturned to a simple "no consensus," which is in reading with the discussion: about half of the participants think the information is not encyclopedic, while the other half think the information is encyclopedic. I am of the latter half - WP:NOT generally lists things that are included in things other than encyclopedias, but the tables in question do not fit into any of those categories (I am not convinced by the WP:NOTTRAVEL arguments because this is not information commonly found in your local bookseller's collection of travel guides, and Wikivoyage has specifically said they do not want to maintain this.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  About Wikivoyage:

  • Wikivoyage only has articles for the world's 91 largest airports; none include destination tables. See: v:Airport articles
  • Wikivoyage editors don't maintain those articles like we do. For example:

  • v:Beijing Capital International Airport -- 127 edits since the Wikivoyage article creation in 2013 (1 edit/month)
  • Beijing Capital International Airport -- 6,343 edits since the Wikipedia article creation in 2003 (26 edits/month)

  A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 08:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• History:

There have been multiple discussions about airport destination lists over the years:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables: "Should we get rid of the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles?"
   • December 2016. Initiated by Sunnya343. Multiple options were offered. The preference was for "Option 3: Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY."
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 17#RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables.
   • August 2017. Initiated by Sunnya343
   • Decision: "references must be provided, and 'searchable' websites are suitable for such references."
3. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?: "Should we update WP:NOTDIR to explicitly state that lists of transportation service destinations are outside the scope of Wikipedia?"
   • February 2018
   • RfC followed the community decision to delete dedicated articles listing airline destinations
   • RfC conclusion: "There is a clear consensus against the proposed addition to WP:NOTDIR."
4. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 167#Airport destination lists
   • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 167#RfC: Ariport destination tables: "Should tabular listings of destinations in airport articles be removed and replaced with prose descriptions?"
     • June 2021
     • RfC withdrawn by nominator in the face of strong support for retaining lists
5. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 19#RFC on Maps and Airline & Destination Tables "Should we consolidate mainline and regional carriers in 'Airline and Destination Tables'?"
   • Implicit acceptance of destination lists during this discussion of how to organize them.
   • April 2022
6. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles: "Should airport articles include tables that display all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to?"
   • October 2023. Initiated by Sunnya343.
   • By my count: 32 wanted to keep the lists, 21 to delete and 9 said something else (of these 9, more tilted negative than positive). I see this as a decent but not overwhelming majority to keep once you factor in the "something elses". (see User:A. B./Sandbox20 for tabulation)

   • I am not asserting a majority !vote should carry a discussion but it's also "not 'nothin"

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• One issue I haven't seen properly addressed is why this information has to be on Wikipedia specifically. A write up on the history of World War II or biographies of current world leaders are valuable information, but people would be understandably irritated if you started posting them on a travel site. Likewise, if you start posting directories and travel guides on an encyclopedia, people are going to be understandably irritated. That's really what's at the crux of the WP:NOT issue here. This could all be resolved if the editors who want to maintain this information went to or started a travel site and maintained it there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, you wrote: "One issue I haven't seen properly addressed is why this information has to be on Wikipedia specifically."

• My answer: Salience. As I noted above, "The fundamental measure of a commercial airport is the extent of its service (airlines and destinations) and passenger/cargo volume."
• Just one table has been removed to my knowledge since the RfC. That sparked off a heated discussion at Talk:Harry Reid International Airport that went to the dispute resolution noticeboard and then WP:ANI.

• 1 editor deleted the content and argued for deletion on the talk page.

• • Sunnya343

• 12 editors and 2 IPs objected or reverted the deletions:

• Metropolitan90, SportingFlyer, Packerfan386, 68.117.131.84, 2600:1700:12f0:97b0:ad0c:bc3f:13a6:cfae, Rsimasek, Janj757, Zackrules90, Reywas92, Jakeh1, Rlrcoasterdude21, RobH2488, Ericm2031, VenFlyer98

• Only two were involved in the RfC (Sunnya343 and Reywas92). Nobody else had heard of it.

• "This could all be resolved if the editors who want to maintain this information went to or started a travel site and maintained it there."

• So, go away then?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Just posting here since my name was brought up, the original reversion by me was before I was ever made aware of the RfC and as stated, I did not take part in it. This was mainly due to not even knowing the RfC existed at the time. I talked with Sunny and while I am against the decision to remove the tables, I left it alone after that. But yes, as stated I was not involved in the RfC. VenFlyer98 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The biggest assumption here from those opposing inclusion is that this is information that only helps people travel from point A to point B, which is not the case at all - I frequently use this data to see which places are connected to each other by direct flights for geopolitical reasons. SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I just want to note that I tried my best to advertise the RFC widely at the time, as I wrote below the introduction. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I make very few edits on Wikipedia and most relate to aviation, so I am not entirely familiar with the dispute resolution process. There is no valid reason to remove the Airlines and Destinations table, as I personally use it for my own knowledge to plan travel and learn about connectivity of certain airports. Although a lot of sources for the Airlines and Destinations table are primary and come from the airline itself, many of the secondary sources cite the airline as their source as that is the primary way to see what routes an airline flies or plans to start or stop service to. I just want to make it known that I am opposed to removing or replacing the Airlines and Destinations list for any commercial airport. Jake (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Sunnya343, you wrote "I just want to note that I tried my best to advertise the RFC widely at the time". I agree - you went to a lot of effort to advertise the discussion, diligently notifying people on both sides of previous disputes.

Nevertheless, 13 out of 15 people on the Las Vegas Airport talk page were surprised. That speaks more to the nature of things on Wikipedia than your exemplary efforts. Most editors aren't following everything everywhere all at once. 6+ million articles, 2 edits/second, 12,000 active editors, a plethora of discussion venues and ongoing discussions — it's a lot. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I did undo it the last time. Lucthedog2 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that the subheadings of this review have been changed to RFC Participants and RFC Non-Participants. I made my statement above as an Involved party, but I did not participate directly in the RFC. Should my statement be moved, or left where it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

* On a lesser point to main topic at hand in this request - I'm trying to understand the last 8 years of this question being brought up repeatedly in different formats and audiences, inclusive of at least 3 times by the same user. While it should always be every wiki user's indelible right to productively challenge/improve the status quo, the frequency ratio of slightly-reworded-proposals to new-productive-justifications appears to be largely unproductive re-asking a question just because one didn't like the answer received (approaching Argumentum Ad Nauseam fallacy levels). The good faith patience of ActivelyDisinterested and A._B. in their explanations (and many others in re-reading all the historical responses) is impressive. For this matter, the fact that we are now in AN discussing about completely changing a closing statement to the point of changing/challenging the closure - all suggested by the same user, feels more a kin to a crusade (and not solely a quixotic one, but one that could be seen as aiming to tire other contributors with ignorance, feigned or otherwise).
Without sounding too pessimistic, my hope for the next such seemingly inevitable round of RFCs/debate on this topic is that we can have greater isolation of the question than this RFC had (is it the format, the subject, the proper citations? This had all three muddled into one); prevailing logos; and even greater awareness/participation. Cheers! DigitalExpat (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• One more key observation that has been bugging me is I when reading this RfC and all the related ones (including the edits that sparked the Dispute Resolution), I believe are all either asking the wrong question, are framed in a fallacious way, or even worse - being presented as a false dilemma. In my reading, I think it clear that the question is:

  - Not about the article layout format (tables/lists) (which to @Sunnya343's credit he did clarify after the fact in his first edit to his RFC, unfortunately the question/title was not able to be changed),

  - Not about the subject (Aviation) - The same question was correctly pointed out in the RFC by @Reywas92 and others in the RfC, this type of information is similarly covered in other articles regarding train services, bus services etc...)

  I think the RfC's could all be better worded and more focused to reduce ambiguity, personal & subjective biases on what seems to be the topic at hand: Are the articles containing this type of information appropriately/sufficiently referenced & cited? (which ironically/appropriately is a core question for every Wikipedia article, no?). Which is just a longer way of stating some of the much more succinct points like @AirshipJungleman29 in the RFC, but I think these flawed RfC's (in particular ones that seek responses shaped into finite ternary choices like the 2016 and 2017 or binary choices like this latest 2023 one, are asking the wrong question/producing the wrong conversations from their outset (and resulting in what dangerously is then referred back to as precedent/justification for large changes to content. I would suggest that a better RFC topic would be something along the lines of "How can we better ensure articles list acceptably cited information when it comes to certain areas like transportation routes?" (or perhaps there's no RFC needed here at all as all content is bound by the same requirements to be accurate, properly referenced, and well-maintained?). DigitalExpat (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Let me add just a simple question. Are you seriously thinking that anyone involved in maintaining these tables will read all the stuff above in order to chime in and get the closure overturned? My position is to overturn it already and let us build and encyclopedia.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• In light of the rather lively conversation between @Buffs and @ScottishFinnishRadish (and as we yet to reach a conclusion to this challenging of a conclusion) - I wanted to point out that I believe this 100+ strong thread is indicative of how complex this particular RFC is. I'd equate it to trying to land on a asteroid spinning on 3 axes:

• 1) A flawed/poorly worded RfC (By my count, at least 6 of the ~62 responding individuals explicitly cited this ( @oknazevad,@Horse Eye's Back, @Trovatore,@Thryduulf,@Senorangel,@DigitalExpat )

• 2) A sub-optimal framing of a question that has unfortunate previous multiple askings of it in different ways as well, that elicit different responses, resulting in pre-existing/citable concensuses that convolute the topic/question even more.

• 3) Unclear what is being challenged (tables? (no per Op), listing any destinations (no per Op), raising consensus above a WikiProject's WP:LOCALCON 2 RFCs (But asking a different question doesn't raise concensus?). Even (admittedly taken completely out of their context, the clarifying statements from the RFC creator read as contradictory/confusing: "The question is quite straightforward. Either you believe Wikipedia should maintain the current, complete lists of airlines and destinations found in all airport articles, or you do not.", (in response to @Epicgenius) [Did you think] "if you !vote "No", it means you believe that explicitly mentioning any current destinations should be forbidden? (Not asking sarcastically.) Because that's not what I meant."

Not intending/desiring to drive this Closure challenge conversation away from its conclusion but just wanting to opine that: 1) It was not a great RFC to begin with and 2) @ScottishFinnishRadish did a good faith genuine effort to make the stick the landing with the closure on this horribly messy 3-axes spinning target of an RFC. The fact that the closure was challenged by the RFC originator feels like a relitigation (and their proposed rewording of what the closure should say with a polar opposite outcome is....not following Closure Challenge procedures). This is all a mess, but it doesn't mean it can't be discussed properly and my opinion doesn't weigh in anymore than anyone else's but wanted to draw back the conversation to if this closure was achieved correctly. As we're past debate of the topic, hopefully an uninvolved 3rd party editor can help resolve this as per the request at the AN Board. Regardless of the outcome, I'd suggest that A._B. 's footnote linking this Closure Challenge (and its conversation) is tagged to the top of it to highlight the valuable points and merited discord in helping to gauge if the results of this RFC are deemed to be of any informative substance. DigitalExpat (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@DigitalExpat, @ScottishFinnishRadish: This is a great description of ScottishFinnishRadish's very challenging task and efforts. I'm asking the closure be overturned but that should not be taken at all as any sort of implicit criticism of The Radish. The root problem was with the RfC and many of the confusing comments. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Procedural question

• I and others including A. B. was planning on bringing this here for a completely different reason, but Sunnya343 filed/pre-empted this on completely opposite grounds after noticing our discussion on A. B.'s talk page here: [5]. Am I/are we allowed to write a separate, dissenting opening statement? I really don't think the close was correct, and I would be endorsing the decision on the grounds presented by the nominator, even though I think the close was grossly inaccurate. SportingFlyer T·C 01:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  pre-empted this on completely opposite grounds after noticing our discussion on A. B.'s talk page here

  I don't think your timeline is accurate:

  1. 02:13, 13 January 2024 - Sunnya343 questions the closure on the closers talk page
  2. 04:01, 15 January 2024 - You question the closure on the closers talk page in a new section
  3. 04:15, 15 January 2024 - You open a discussion about the closure on A. B.'s talk page
  4. 00:04, 17 January 2024 - The closer declines to adjust the close as requested by Sunnya343
  5. 04:07, 18 January 2024 - Sunnya343 opens the close review

  As far as I can tell, the first person to question this close was Sunnya343 - I don't think it's either accurate or appropriate to suggest that they only questioned it after seeing your discussion or to say that they did so to preempt you. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  The fact they posted on A. B.'s talk page and were aware of our concerns still troubles me. SportingFlyer T·C 10:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  My request for closure review stems from my experience trying to defend my removal of this list based on the RFC close, dating back to November. In the ANI discussion that I linked on the article talk page, Robert McClenon listed three options for how to proceed with the dispute. The list was nevertheless restored without any changes, i.e. without [showing] that [it was] supported by secondary sources. I could have continued to advocate for the removal of the list, but I no longer believe the requirement for secondary sources is appropriate. In short, I have my own concerns about the close, for which I have requested closure review.

  I have known about A.B.'s intentions to challenge the close since 20 December. So I am well aware that you and others have a very different perspective on this RFC. You are fully entitled to that perspective, just as I am to mine. Once you have formulated your arguments, I see no reason why you should not be allowed to challenge the close on the basis of them. Sunnya343 (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Question - Maybe I am making the mistake of expecting editors to explain concisely what the issues are. I see that User:Sunnya343 is challenging the close. I have known since about 21 December 2023 that User:A.B. was planning to challenge the close, since I closed the DRN case. When I closed the DRN case, I said that editors should either accept the rough consensus established by the RFC closure by User:ScottishFinnishRadish or challenge the closure at WP:AN, which is now being done, only one month after the DRN dispute. I am puzzled as to how Sunnya343 and A.B. say that they have different close challenges. If the two of them have different ideas as to how the RFC should have been closed, maybe it might be helpful if they each stated what they think that the close should have said. That is, if one wants the close overturned, what should it be overturned to? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon, the closer stated "there is consensus that airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE". The closer cited 3 policies to reach this decision; my analysis above shows they misapplied the 3 policies to this situation.^diff For this reason, the RfC should be overturned to allow tables based on reliable primary sources. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 08:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon I second A. B.'s justification but also note the close is inconsistent with the discussion, similar to a supervote argument at DRV. A simple majority of users said yes, the yes votes are grounded in policy, out of 60 participants only one discussed WP:DUE at all, and only four participants distinctly discussed either primary sources or secondary sources in their response, only four or five participants discussed the reliability of sources. The idea there's a clear consensus on sourcing is technically a supervote based on the discussion, and should either be removed, or the discussion overturned to a simple no consensus. This argument is in addition to the misapplication of WP:DUE. SportingFlyer T·C 10:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon - I strongly third the above. After much much re-reading of multiple threads (including the very essential reading of the DR!). @SportingFlyer and @A. B. describe it perfectly above, I would say part of the reason it is so needed is this CR Review was opened and in the reasoning for the opening the audience is presented with an easy to miss syllogistic fallacy (paragraph 2 of the reasoning can be paraphrased as: "many RfC voters expressed opinions that valid sources need not be secondary", paragraph 3 then can be paraphrased as: "the closing statement should be reworded to say the flight information should be not be included in articles because its WP:NOT"). This is a flawed & invalid reasoning to request a CR be reviewed and is a contributor to the much confused conversation (that ends up being non-objective (CR Review) and trends to subjective posts/voting in this CR Review (re-discussing the subject of the RfC) as evidenced above I would suggest. I voted Endorse solely because the CR Review request to be voted on is crafted in a way that makes it an incorrect/false dilemma. DigitalExpat (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• SportingFlyer, could you please move your comments out of the uninvolved section. You can present them in the involved section and make it clear who they are in response to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't involved in the RfC.

  SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry SF! Friday afternoon blindness. Sunnya343, could you please move your comments per the above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Will do. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It's time to resolve this review

It's been three days since the last comment was posted. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I just posted a request for closure at WP:CR. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Bumping to hold off archiving. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a 30 day {{do not archive until}} template. Hopefully we'll have closure before then. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Closure review: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#RFC: Electronic Intifada

Mach61 closed this RFC with a consensus to deprecate, however I do not think any reading of this discussion supports such a closure. The closing statement says as most all participants voted options 3 or 4, those who voted 4 strongly advocated their position, and few option 3 voters differentiated their position from those favoring deprecation, but that effectively makes it so that users who found no reason to deprecate considered as deprecate voters and the volume or passion of those supporting deprecation somehow being a factor. In the discussion at their user talk, they said The anti-deprecation side was just Iskandar (who held the minority option 2 position) and VR, but that again includes all the users who voted for generally unreliable but *not* deprecate considered as the deprecation side. And that is quite simply not true. I know that because I voted option 3, and I do not appreciate my vote not to deprecate being taken as a vote to deprecate. There is a super majority opposed to deprecation in that RFC, and I see no possible reading of it that supports a consensus to deprecate. The user has declined to engage at their talk page while continuing to edit, so I request review here. nableezy - 21:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Closer's response (EI)

I actually meant to reply to Nableezy but interceding events came in the way.

Anyhow, the gist of my closing logic was that the comments of several (but not all) option 3 !voters (for example, one who compared the site to Stormfront) seemed amenable to deprecation, which (per the guidance at WP:DEPS) does not mean "unique or uniquely unreliable", but rather relatively likely-to-be-cited and unusuable as a sole source of information except in an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion. I am aware that this is not applicable to every such !vote (Nableezy's argument, for example, is clearly incompatible with deprecation), but imo the very, very low general opinion of EI's factual credibility in that thread was enough for a close as "deprecate" to be within discretion. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The decision to deprecate shouldnt be "within discretion", it should be a clear consensus as the effect of that decision is so wide ranging and severe, effectively barring the usage of a source across the entire encyclopedia on the basis of some 9 votes. No such consensus exists in that discussion in my view. nableezy - 21:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with nableezy. starship.paint (RUN) 01:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to add the very idea of discretion being used here doesn’t sit well with me. We as a community grant admins a certain amount of discretion in making decisions, but that isn’t the case in reading consensus, and certainly for a NAC. You aren’t making a decision, a closers role is to articulate what the participants have decided by consensus. That very word implies a super vote, that you are deciding something because you can, not that the discussion has consensus for it. That may just be unfortunate wording but nobody granted you any discretion to determine if a source should be deprecated. nableezy - 04:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC Non-Participants (EI)

I didn't notice this RfC until after it was closed, but I also had the same impression as Nableezy regarding the closure. There is a world of difference in practice between "generally unreliable" and "deprecate" and it is simply wrong to count "generally unreliable" !votes as if they are "deprecate". People who !vote "generally unreliable" clearly have a low opinion of the source but their !vote should be taken to imply opposition to deprecation unless they indicate otherwise. Zero^talk 03:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, I'm seeing 9 editors in favor of Option 4, and ten in favor of Option 3. However, of those ten many made comments suggesting that they wouldn't oppose Option 4 or would support it:

1. Would also like to emphasize the latter bits of what Bob's written - the heavy reliance on already-deprecated sources such as Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen is worrying, and I could probably be convinced to vote for deprecation here as well.

2. Option 3 at least and probably Option 4.

3. They don't seem to do much original reporting. I give them 3 rather than 4 for the odd story that might serve as a useful justification for a statement, but I cannot see that happening very often. Most of their articles seem to be either one-sided reinterpretation of the news reported elsewhere or personal opinions.

4. Citing it in an article would be like citing Stormfront.

I'm certainly not seeing the super majority opposed to deprecation in that RFC that Nableezy suggests exists. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

All the people who voted anything other than 4 >>> the people who voted for 4. nableezy - 03:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As a general comment, it does seem a bit weird that the barrier to deprecate a source, particular sources with a pronounced bias, isn't set a lot higher given that

• Organized vote stacking exists, is difficult to detect and could have an impact when the number of participants is low.
• Discussions about sources with a pronounced bias are likely to attract a disproportionate number of biased editors rather than an unbiased sample of the editor community as a whole.
• Although it is presumably mostly a labor-saving device, deprecating a source does superficially seem a bit like thinking we can predict the future and know that there will never be any circumstances at all where a source would be reliable in that specific context, at least until you read Wikipedia:Deprecated sources.
• "generally unreliable" and "deprecate" do seem very far apart in a practical sense e.g. depreciated sources usually trigger edit filters even though Wikipedia:Deprecated sources does not rule out their usage. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

To be explicit: My screen width is set to about 30 words. Corrections welcome:

♦Only three people who voted either 4 or "3 and probably 4" wrote more than one line, one of whom (Homethegreat) was soon banned by ArbCom. Two people wrote one full line and all the other people who voted 4 (one now banned by ArbCom) wrote only 5 words each on average.

♦Of those who voted 3, five wrote more than one line, one wrote a full line, and two wrote a few words.

♦Of those who voted 1, 2, or "3 and possibly 2", four wrote more than one line and one wrote a few words.

In summary, the vote was not only numerically opposed to option 4, but when the amount of argument is taken into account it was overwhelmingly opposed to option 4. I simply cannot reconcile this data with the closure. Zero^talk 07:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Having re-read the discussion I think the result could have been either unreliable or deprecate, which isn't a helpful analysis. It is a close result and I'd agree that some stating unreliable also showed a preference for deprecation or made comments similar to such. However given the limited participation I would be hesitant to deprecate, so this should probably have been closed as unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am struggling with "some stating unreliable also showed a preference for deprecation or made comments similar to such." No, not really. If Option 3 can be taken into account as option 4, which I don't think can, then the RFC is basically awkward. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say anything like If Option 3 can be taken into account as option 4, as that would be false. However something like saying option 3 because the source is no better than another deprecated source, could be seen as also endorsing deprecation. RFC's are not a vote, the content of comments counts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  However something like saying option 3 because the source is no better than another deprecated source, could be seen as also endorsing deprecation. No this is a terrible idea. "Generally unreliable: I think this is as bad as the Daily Mail" (or whatever) is also consistent with the person believing that both sources are unreliable and that neither one should be deprecated. If someone wanted to endorse deprecation, they would have endorsed deprecation. --JBL (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying Stormfront should only be considered unreliable rather than deprecated? Because that particular comment didn't compare it to the Daily Mail.
  I just think the lack of participation is a bigger issue when taking the step of deprecation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm saying you are suggesting trying to read the mind of someone, rather than their words; but once you do that, there are lots of possible meanings you can twist something into. It's better to assume that people mean what they write. --JBL (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  So if I wrote "Option 1 obviously spreads lies, hoaxes, and deliberate misinformation" the closer should consider my comment as the source being reliable?
  I am not, nor have I at any point said that the closer should try and read minds. However the content of comments applies, RFCs are not a vote. The closer is meant to read the arguments presented, not just count the numbers on editors votes. There is no mind reading involved here, one editor said that option 3 but option 4 would be fine, while another compared it to a source that is blacklisted per WP:HATESPEECH. Of course the closer should not take it that all 'Option 3' comments are equally accepting of 'Option 4', but that isn't and hasn't been my point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, some people made claims without any evidence whatsoever, and those should be given the weight they deserve. You also seem to be neglecting that three people also said option 2, and one said 3 or 2. There is no reading of this discussion that has a consensus for deprecate. The Stormfront line is particularly absurd, with the user saying that the fact that the title includes the Arabic word for uprising in its name makes it "clear"[ly] unreliable. Clearly a strong argument. nableezy - 17:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Whatever the nature of the Stormfront comment I'm not interested in relitigation of the RFC. If you wish to discuss the comment ask the editor who made it. Just because I have not mentioned that three people also said option 2, and one said 3 or 2 doesn't mean I have ignored them, or if it does so is your own comment that opened this review as it doesn't mention them either.
  The review as you raised it is whether the weight of arguments back a close of deprecation, I don't think it does because of low participation (something I have brought up previously in close reviews of RFCs at RSN). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you !voted that way, and I was a closer, I'd probably just disregard your vote entirely. The idea that we should go only by the text and not by the bolded conclusion seems obviously ridiculous to me. The whole thing is part of one !vote that's intended to be read together; reading only part of it is pretty obviously silly. Loki (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Im not relitigating the RFC, I am discussing the weighting of the votes and determining consensus, which is what a closure review is supposed to be about? nableezy - 19:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Whether it's absurd or not is something that should have been discussed in the RFC (it's a opinion about the source). I'm not involved and don't want to be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  ??? The substance of the RfC is about EI; questions about how particular votes should have been weighed are meta questions suitable for a closure review. People participating in an RfC can argue about whether other people's reasoning is any good, but that's not the purpose or substance of the RfC. --JBL (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've replied to this again below, I'm not replying in two places. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  👍 --JBL (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  So if I wrote "Option 1 obviously spreads lies, hoaxes, and deliberate misinformation" the closer should consider my comment as the source being reliable? I don't think we've been discussing what to do with nonsensical votes (the right answer is, discard them); rather whether it is reasonable to take a sensible argument for one position and count it as a vote in favor of a different (inconsistent) position. I agree with nableezy that that particular vote (which you brought up in this thread after I suggested a concrete hypothetical, and which doesn't fit the pattern of the broader hypothetical you raised option 3 because the source is no better than another deprecated source) is of poor quality and shouldn't be weighed significantly (for any position). --JBL (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  You right my exaggerated example was exaggerated, and again I have no interest in relighting the RFC so I won't be discussing any opinion on particular comments.
  I disagree that only the number of the option expressed in the comment should be taken into account, and not the arguments raised in comment, as that just sounds like making RFCs a vote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree that only the number of the option expressed in the comment should be taken into account Well luckily no one has been arguing that. --JBL (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  And I am not, and have not argued the opposite, and yet here we are. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  ?? The place we are is that you suggested a principle that could be applied, when people objected to that general principle you were like "yes but what about this one particular !vote", and then when people try to discuss that one particular !vote you're like "I'm not here to relitigate the RfC". It is not clear at all you're trying to accomplish in this discussion. --JBL (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I did not and I've been trying to point that out repeatedly. My point was that the arguements in comments should be taken into account, trying to explain this to persistent questioning has led to examples being taken as statements of fact. And my point being reposted as something I have not said.
  As to Nableezy's point whether the source is or is not as bad as Stormfront is an opinion about the source, that was the point of the RFC and not something I want to be involved in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nableezy's point whether the source is or is not as bad as Stormfront That was not Nableezy's point.

  I find it hard to square your summary here ("My point was ...") with your original comment some stating unreliable also showed a preference for deprecation or made comments similar to such. Taking your more recent summary at face value, I think it's safe to say (as I did two posts above) that no one is arguing with this anodyne statement; I hope you will accept this as an offer to agree to agree about it. --JBL (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  The Stormfront line is particularly absurd are we reading the same mess of threads?
  Ok lets make this easier, should a closer take into account the arguments raised in an editors comments in an RFC regardless of what their exact voting option is, or should editors comments only count towards what option they voted for? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  If that's a yes, then editors making arguments that strengthen the comments for deprecation could be seen as giving those comments more weight. If it's a no, then I'm sorry we just have to agree to disagree as that just sounds like making RFCs a vote to me.
  I'm not "saying 3 + comment makes 4", I'm saying arguments raised by editors could strengthen options they didn't 'vote' for. If you 'vote' option 2 but your comment completely rebutts all arguments made by those arguing option 1, then option 1 should be given less weight. That in turn may mean the result is neither 2 or 1, as you where the only person 'voting' for option 2. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  In your hypothetical, a closer should absolutely not argue that the !vote in question showed "a preference for postition 3" because the person writing the !vote clearly and unambiguously stated that they believe that 2 applied, rather than 3. It is possible that, in the context of a discussion that is going to come down to 2 or 3, a !vote of the form "2. [lots of reasons 1 is wrong]" will not be very helpful to the closer in determining which of 2 and 3 achieved consensus, but to the extent it is weighed it obviously can only be weighed as favoring 2 over 3, or possibly discarded as nonsensical. --JBL (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  You're not engaging with my question. What if the views are at the maximum polar opposites, nearly every editor is ever option 1 or option 4 and the most compelling arguement against option 1 is in a comment that bolds for option 2. Should those arguments be ignored because the comment isn't for either option 1 or option 4? The comments are rational and are not rebutted in the RFC, so discarding them out of hand is not an option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  When I was drafting my previous post, I deleted a sentence that roughly said, "No closer is ever going to be in the position of choosing between 1 and 3 and having to decide for the 2s which way to count them". Oh, well. --JBL (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'll switch it alround for you. Most editors either support option 2 or option 3. An editor bold comments option 1 and includes arguments in their comment that rebutt all the options 3 arguments. Should their arguments be ignored because the RFC is going to come down to either option 2 or option 3? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nableezy's comment discusses the (obviously ridiculous) logical structure of Chess's vote. The vote literally argues that EI must be unreliable because the name of the publication includes the word "Intifada". Anyone can see that this makes no sense, without having an opinion about whether EI is a good source or not. --JBL (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's an opinion about the source, I'm not going to comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  It literally has no content about the source. --JBL (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I just wrote out a whole comment then scrapped it, as it just goes back other the arguments in the RFC and I'm sticking to not getting involved. There is no way to discuss opinions without doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Don’t overturn After reading the discussion again, I understand the issue that Nableezy is having, but agree with the interpretation of Mach61 that most votes were either in favour of or comfortable with depreciation and therefore believe that a depreciation was appropriate. I disagree with the assessment that word count is in any way significant: quantity of arguments made is not a clear indication for or against the ‘value’ of the vote, and in many cases, you may need to write more if you have a minority opinion that is harder to argue for. FortunateSons (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is my first comment here, corrections regarding violations of form and policy are encouraged FortunateSons (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems clear that the RfC should not have been deemed as a consensus to deprecate. I don't see how or why option 3 votes are being interpreted as "amenable to deprecation" or "comfortable with deprecation". There were also a few option 2 votes as well. It should also be said that there is concern in this topic area of users voting on ideological grounds and there are known to have been issues with canvassing directly involving two of the editors who voted in this RfC [6], so special care should be taken to weigh the quality of the votes rather than to simply count the quantity of the votes. (Although in this case even a simple counting of votes would not establish consensus to deprecate) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn - I don't see how that discussion can reasonably be interpreted as consensus to deprecate. In addition to the numerical majority against deprecation, many of the votes for that option are simple assertions that the source is biased with little to no justification or evidence it has made serious, recurring factual errors. Hatman31 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Zero, IOHANNVSVERVS and Hatman31. Deprecation is a serious matter, there should be a higher bar to meet regarding a clear consensus for it to be implemented. Votes for deprecation can easily be assumed to support general unreliability, but not the other way around, so numerically there is not enough support for deprecation. This, coupled with several weak votes for deprecation based on claims of bias without producing any evidence, as well as the recent ArbCom endorsed history of canvassing in the topic area, means we should err on the side of caution, and not deprecate. starship.paint (RUN) 01:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. As Starship.paint states, deprecation is a serious matter and should only be carried out when a clear consensus exists, and the RfC simply doesn't demonstrate that. I would also concur with those pointing out that claims of bias - or even evidence of bias - aren't on their own legitimate (i.e. policy-based) grounds to deprecate. Wikipedia has never demanded that sources be unbiased (measured how, exactly?). Instead, it requires that articles be unbiased, through representation in due proportion of the differing views found in relevant sources. Given the subject matter concerned, trying to find sources with no bias of one form or another would seem a fools errand. Clearly, EI needs to be used with caution as a source, but we should be doing that with any source concerning such a sensitive topic, and not trying to apply simplistic binary biased/unbiased or always reliable/always unreliable classifications as a substitute for careful assessment of specific uses of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn for the very simple reason that a vote that is comfortable with deprecation is not the same as a vote to deprecate. If everyone in that RFC voted Option 3 with a note saying they were comfortable with deprecation, it would be a clear consensus for "generally unreliable" and no consensus for deprecation. Given this, I don't think it's at all reasonable to read the RFC as a consensus to deprecate. As Nableezy says, the large majority of the votes were for options other than deprecate. I also note that there was a burst of terse Option 4 votes near the end including one editor known to have been canvassed: IMO all these should receive significantly lower weight both for not making an argument and for suspected canvassing. Loki (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. There isn't a clear consensus for deprecation there, which one would probably expect for such a significant move. Secondly, a large number of the !votes for Option 4, especially those near the end of the discussion, are just assertions with no supporting evidence. Thirdly, though a minor issue, the Option 4 !vote by Dovidroth should be disregarded as that editor was proxying for a banned user. This should have been closed as Option 3. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Don't Overturn. There was a general consensus that EI's factual credibility is very low. That is enough to deprecate it as a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Noon (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Don’t overturn I agree with the interpretation of Mach61 and the reasoning of Billed Mammal. GidiD (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Blackkite, the consensus for deprecation doesn't exist, but is needed for such a significant move.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-close as option 3 There is no way an opinion of "generally unreliable" should be construed as support for "deprecate". If anything, it should be the other way around. This should CLEARLY have been closed as option 3. Buffs (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Don't Overturn (or - if necessary for procedural purposes - overturn and re-close as option 3) Took a few days to digest the prior and current proceedings. Obviously, we have a technical count issue at hand, but the evidence is pretty clear the source is unreliable. Whether appropriate for the closure to stand on a clear inevitability, or an overturn is appropriate only so the appropriate closure grounds are formalized on option 3, there are no convincing grounds presented to restore EI to a RS. Mistamystery (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. I don't see a consensus for deprecation. Deprecation is the strongest possible measure available (except for blacklisting), so I believe it needs a clear, affirmative consensus to do so. From my view, unless Option 3 voters explicitly (or a clear implicit statement) state that Option 4 is their close second choice, Option 3 votes should IMO be treated as against deprecation and not be treated as being comfortable towards deprecation. Accordingly, numerically Option 4 votes does not constitute a clear majority (i.e., >60%). Strength-wise, I think that the deprecation arguments are strong and well-reasoned, but Option 2/3 arguments are also fairly P&G based and I don't believe that deprecation/Option 4 votes are significantly stronger than Option 2/3 votes (though I think others would be bound to disagree on this point). Therefore, while there is overwhelming consensus that this source is clearly unreliable, I don't really see consensus for deprecation. Finally, I think that for such a lengthy and contentious discussion, I don't think that an one-sentence close is insufficient. VickKiang (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Don't overturn. "There was a general consensus that EI's factual credibility is very low" is correct, so if this is overturned and re-discussed, the result is going to end up the same anyway. Let's just skip the bureaucracy. While the closer's "certainty", if you will, is a bit firmer than mine would have been, I can't say that the closer clearly erred, so there is no basis on which to overturn the close.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  If it was overturned and re-discussed, it will very likely end up as Option 3, which is a different result. Loki (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn I find the analysis in the opening statement (and e.g. by VickKiang) compelling. --JBL (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - basically what JBL said. I see more "3" votes than "4" votes in that RFC, and when you remove the votes by now-TBANed editors, it's even more heavily 3 than 4. I don't agree with the closer's reasoning; in fact, I think it's the opposite. Editors voting "3" (or 2) and not 4 had a very strong argument, which is that EI publishes scholars and is cited by scholars. So there is a reason to allow, e.g. WP:EXPERTSPS content published there to be used, even if we don't use any of their other content. Ilan Pappe is a listed contributor there, for example. So I don't see any reason for downweighing 3 votes or considering them to be votes for deprecation in any way. Levivich (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - No consensus exists in support of deprecating the source. I am confident that the RFC's closure and the the closer's comment should be backed by guidelines like WP:DETCON. Apparently the closer relied on his own "discretion"[7], which I don't think aligns with consensus assessment. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn editors who did not !vote to deprecate should not have their !votes misrepresented by the closer. This was a close against consensus, and as such it should be swiftly overturned. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC Participants (EI)

• Don't overturn. I agree with FortunateSons: Most votes were either in favor of or comfortable with deprecation, which is sufficient to establish consensus. Comfortable with deprecation means they accept this result. Marokwitz (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  How many option 3 votes do you consider were "comfortable with deprecation" and which ones? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  I completely concur with IOHANNVSVERVS. If you are going to make this claim, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate how it applies. Buffs (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Don't overturn per Mach61, FortunateSons, Marokwitz, SMcCandish, BilledMammal, and ActivelyDisinterested. JM (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (EI)

All those involved agree this isn't contributing to the close review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just as general commentary, you posted the comment on their talk page at 18:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC), and then opened this at 21:13, 26 January 2024. Even if they are editing elsewhere, editors aren't expected to drop everything and respond to non-urgent matters; I think it would have been reasonable to give them 24 hours to respond. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC) They continued editing, and the prior post on their page from that conversation was unanswered from 4 Jan. nableezy - 03:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC) I'm not mad at you for opening this, but trust me, I had the reply window open right before something forced me offline for a few hours, I wasn't ignoring you. No comment on the Jan 4 comment. Mach61 (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC) I believe you, but as your one response in that section to another user said If you still disagree, open a closure review at WP:AN I’m not sure why BilledMammal think I should not have opened such a review. Anyway, I don’t think this distraction has anything to do with the close review and would welcome it being hatted. nableezy - 04:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC) I raised it because I felt your comment in the appeal that The user has declined to engage at their talk page while continuing to edit, so I request review here was an unfair characterization; no objection to hatting or removing this section if you remove that sentence. BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I'm concerned about some of the votes here and it appears to be exemplary of a broader problem in the Arab-Israeli WP:CTOP, where certain editors are showing up in many different RfCs and discussions and simply agreeing with each other and voting together without sound arguments and seemingly on ideological/partisan grounds. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:AE, WP:ANI, WP:ARBCOM. A close review is not the place for vague accusations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

FAIT removals by FortunateSons

FortunateSons is continuing with their campaign of removing all citations to EI while this challenge is ongoing. I requested they stop so as to not add to the work of reverting hundreds of edits manually if the challenge results in the deprecation decision being overturned. They have declined to do so. Is it really appropriate for them to continue making these edits while the challenge is ongoing? If not can somebody else tell them to stop? nableezy - 15:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the result is "Generally unreliable" or "deprecated", wouldn't most of them need to be removed anyway? BilledMammal (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. That’s something that should be looked at individually, not indiscriminately tossed out. nableezy - 15:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I avoided some and just left talk page entries on others. However, most (or all) would also be covered by a 3, as the area where most articles by EI are is also the area where they are most unreliable, such as I/P, BDS and actions of BLP. FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this as requested. While the longer discussion is on my talk page, the gist of it is:

1. FIAT does not cover cases where I am justified, as I am while this noticeboard is open. The beginning of my edits pre-dates the editing and was not designated to avoid this noticeboard.

2. I am generally careful when it comes to removing things, such as generally a) not removing subject matter experts, b) leaving talk page edits and c) reaching out to past editors where necessary. Most of my edits are in areas where the source is probably not or only minimally usable, such as I/P, BDS and BLP. Most or all of those would also be covered by a 3, including my interpretation of the vote by @Nableezy.

3. I believe that I am generally permitted to make those edits, and have complied in good faith with requests, such as suggesting dispute resolution and not making edits while this is ongoing. FortunateSons (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

What is meant by FAIT here? Edit: Found it - WP:FAIT IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• I would suggest that FortunateSons, in a show of good faith, pause their removals of EI. Particularly because of their stress of the source being deprecated in edit summaries when this deprecation is being challenged. starship.paint (RUN) 00:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I agree and already have (unless an admin or dispute resolution mechanism says that I am permitted), but would still like a decision to be made just so this doesn’t come up next time :).
  • Just to be clear, I include the depreciation as a shorthand, as I don’t really want to create a long list of issues to copy and paste from if it’s already discussed at length in the RfC.

  FortunateSons (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheNewMinistry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

TheNewMinistry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheNewMinistry (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from BLP topics, imposed at [8], logged at [9] -->

Administrator imposing the sanction

Abecedare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[10]

Statement by TheNewMinistry

I'm here in good faith after User:Callanecc noticed I breached my BLP topic ban that was sanctioned in April 2022. Administrator User:Abecedare originally issued the ban, but does not appear to be active (hasn't logged in since 2023). I left proper notice on their talk page regardless, but I figured coming here would lead to a faster decision. In the time since my sanction, I have focused primarily on editing/creating/fleshing out sports-related pages. Some examples I'm proud of: Sahlen Field (my first good article!), Ric Flair's Last Match, Buffalo Sharks, Buffalo Stampede, Buffalo 716ers, Buffalo Blue Hawks, etc. And as an extension of the research I've been doing into the basketball teams, I started making/expanding pages for noteworthy basketball players such as Richard Jacob and Modie Cox. All the edits I made are properly sourced, and (in my opinion) objective and uncontroversial. My topic ban was issued after I got heated over some political topics - I definitely stay away from that these days. I'd like to apologize for my conduct two years ago, as I've tried to be better and move past it. Please consider my request, and thank you for your time. TheNewMinistry (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Yes, I definitely got carried away when working on sports articles. It's easy to get absorbed in niche research that (hopefully) someone cares about. Again, I apologize for not addressing the topic-ban sooner. TheNewMinistry (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Abecedare

From the notice that I had left at the time of imposing the topic-ban, I see that it was placed in April 2022 in response to BLP-violating POV-pushing (RGW-editing) related to the Covid pandemic. Temperatures, understandably, ran high(er) in that topic-area at that time. Given that TheNewMinistry seems to have moved on to editing other areas and the substance of their recent edits has been unproblematic (correct me if I am wrong on this), I am okay with the topic-ban being lifted.

I would have been more fully on board with rescinding the sanction, and would have perhaps done so on my own, if TheNewMinistry hadn't simply ignored the topic-ban and resumed editing BLPs extensively starting, afaict, Jul/Aug 2023. However, unless there are some other (especially BLP) issues with the content of their edits that I have missed, I wouldn't want the violation of the topic-band to be the sole reason for continuing the topic-ban.

PS: Though I am currently inactive, I will check in on this discussion at least once per day for any questions you may have. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheNewMinistry

I don't think I've ever interacted with the OP before, but I'm sure they're an all-round good egg. However, at first glance—and deeply aware of my ignorance of this particular sport—I'm finding it hard to align being Topic-banned from making BLP-related edits anywhere on wikipedia, and creating articles (not just edits) such as Ric Flair's Last Match, Richard Jacob and Modie Cox. I appreciate, as the OP suggests, that they are properly sourced, and... objective and uncontroversial, but by my understanding, the TB was from all BLPs, not solely those that were poorly sourced, partisan or controversial. Apologies again if I'm missing something obvious. ——Serial 15:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My impression was that TheNewMinistry essentially forgot about the TBAN while they were editing sports-related topics so started editing BLPs essentially in error. @TheNewMinistry: might want to clarify that though? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the above discussion and since no new comments seem to be forthcoming, I plan to lift the BLP topic-ban that I had placed in about 24 hours unless there are any objections or alternate suggestions. Pinging @TheNewMinistry, Serial Number 54129, and Callanecc: in case they wish to add anything. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heads up for new partial block categories

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T353496

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T280531

A couple of years ago, we got partial blocks. There's an update which will add additional possibilities: you'll be able to block users from uploading files, creating pages, moving pages, or sending thanks. See meta:Community health initiative/Partial blocks#Action blocks for more info. This has already been rolled out on some wikis and it's scheduled to get rolled out on enwiki at the end of this week. RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That's handy! There have ben a couple of times I've wished I could block someone from moving pages, and I can imagine Commons admins will find it very useful to be able to block people from uploading. I can't say partial blocks are something I use every day but it's always nice to have more options. The banhammer is a blunt instrument and it's nice to have something with a finer point sometimes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

On Commons, I can't imagine why you would block someone from uploading rather than just full block them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The only case I could think of is someone who's an active cross-wiki antivandal patroller who simply can't grasp the licensing policy. But, yeah, if one can't upload pictures, one typically would be better off indef'd. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There's more to Commons than uploading files, just as there's more to Wikipedia than writing articles. A lot of it is file maintenance and categorisation but I could see there being edge cases where an editor had something to add but needed to be stopped from uploading files. Or where somebody could be prevented from uploading more files until they clean up a mess they've made with their existing uplaods. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've used the upload parblock on Commons a few time. It's very useful for users who have been mass uploading (usually from Flickr) without doing the bare minimum work of adding useful filenames, descriptions, and categories, since it allows them to clean up their mess (and rebuild trust) without adding to the mess. Much easier than the previous method, where you had to manually edit an abuse filter. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Have any of those users actually cleaned up their messes, though? We've tried doing similar things many times here - mostly in the context of copyright infringement and too-close paraphrasing, but also in a few cases where someone was creating many articles from a source that turned out to be quite inaccurate - and I can't think of a single example when the user in question helped out enough to matter. —Cryptic 22:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had occasion to do so, but I always thought partial-blocking from the file namespace would prevent uploads. —Cryptic 23:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cryptic p-blocking File: does stop uploads, but if someone is only having a problem with uploads, but not with editing file descriptions - you could pblock them from just uploads. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, so it does. I blocked one of my socks and then tried to upload a file with that account. I got:

Upload failed: Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this. You may still be able to do other things on this site, such as editing certain pages. You can view the full block details at account contributions. The block was made by ‪RoySmith‬. The reason given is testing. *Start of block: 23:30, 6 February 2024 *Expiration of block: 23:30, 13 February 2024 *Intended blockee: ‪RoySmith-testing‬ *Block ID #24315984. RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's useful, thanks! I've really liked the p-block tool, like HJM I appreciate being able to do what's sufficient and no more, when dealing with otherwise useful editors.

Honestly I've been wondering if we should reconsider whether timed blocks of increasing lengths for edit-warring are still the appropriate strategy. Maybe it would be better to just indef p-block from the article in question, which both allows the editor to contribute everywhere else and also doesn't discourage any admin from considering an unblock, with or without conditions, instead of just letting editors wait out the block. Valereee (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've started doing this for edit warring. It also gives a surprisingly good metric of how appropriate a full block would have been; on occasion someone just loses their shit over an edit-war p-block and end up indeffed anyway. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac, good to know someone is using this strategy. I'll give it a try next time, see if anyone objects. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've also used p-blocks for this from time to time and it seems to do the trick and redirect people to the talk page. – Joe (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If there's one thing I've learnt in 30k blocks, it's that some people lose their shit over fairly minor (to an outsider) things completely unexpectedly, and some people accept strong sanctions that you were sure they'd appeal with good grace. It's hard to predict which will be which. I've seen people talk themselves into an indef over a 24-hour block and I've seen people throw their hands up and accept long-term site bans. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Mass-rollback for LTA

This LTA has been socking profusely lately. Their last account (not yet blocked; see SPI) has racked up ~500 edits in little more than a week, including numerous disruptive page moves. As HistoryofIran also previously asked here, is it possible to perform a mass-rollback each time a new account is found?

Ideally I would like to be able to ask a CU who knows how to do this, since they could immediately also check the account first: this would allow the roll-back to be performed swifter, which is less disruptive. Who would be up for that? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The LTA sure is on a run. Thanks for reporting them, Apaugasma. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a way to mass-rollback page moves, the tool I use doesn't do it. I'm also not sure how checkuser can help? Anyone with at least pagemover should be able to untangle these. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Within 4 days of account creation the newest sock starting making page moves. I'm surprised we don't have an edit filter set to log such incidences.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel like we do, but I couldn't tell you which one it is. I've been manually undoing their moves this morning but I have to run out to an appointment, so anyone else is welcome to take over. For admins: just move the title back to the original name and overwrite the redirect, they're trying to add dummy edits so that it can't be done automatically but we do not need to preserve that history. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've spent literally months of my life (manually) reverting this particular LTA, and I guess this is just me letting the community know that I won't be doing that anymore. I was thinking that if there were a highly active CU I could approach to both run a check and perform mass-rollback on each new account I run across, that might help things a little, but I might be a bit naive about what is possible here. Anything else that can be done, like specific edit filters to catch them more swiftly, would certainly be welcome! Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Appeal to edit "Draft:James Naleski" stub

I am reaching out to request an appeal for the block on James Naleski's page. My intention is to create pages for the Governor's Office Staff, including key positions such as Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, Director of Digital, Art Director, and more. While developing these pages, I understand that I may have inadvertently included promotional content. I want to clarify that listing awards is unnecessary, as they are not relevant to include.

I would be grateful to receive a stub for the page and would like to link the photos from the CT State Library. Furthermore, I would like to request stubs for the Governor's State of the State addresses' writers.

For your convenience, here is the relevant link to my request: https://cslarchives.ctstatelibrary.org/agents/people/1199 JoeK2033 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

One problem I see is a comment you have on your talk page, regarding articles on these people: "I ask that you please reconsider blocking me from this page as I am going to be interviewing them and would like to use some of the information that I gather and post. " If you are interviewing them, and wanting to publish your interview on Wikipedia, that clearly would run afoul of our policy on original research WP:OR. You don't seem to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, or at least this one. We write articles that summarize articles that are already written by 2nd tier sources (newspapers, tv programs, major websites and news organizations). We also will include some material from PRIMARY SOURCES, ie: the people themselves, but only very carefully. This includes verifying birth days, political stands, etc, where it makes sense to take their word for it, but qualify that information in the article. We aren't here for original publication of interviews.

If you publish your interviews somewhere else instead, and let's say that publication meets our standard for reliable sources WP:RS, then you still shouldn't be the one to put that information in the article, as you have a conflict of interest. Your additons aren't unbiases, you are of course going to be biased to include your own interviews, even preferring them over other reliable sources. This violates the core principle that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. If you DO get them published in a reliable source, you CAN bring them up on a talk page and allow others to add them into the article. This is acceptable, as the final editorial decision isn't yours. But you can already do this, so unblocking you from editing this one article, and allowing you to create the other articles, isn't necessary. You shouldn't be doing it. With that in mind, I would decline unblocking you from editing that article, and remind you that if you create the others where there is a strong COI and bias, it will likely lead to more blocks.Dennis Brown 2¢ 05:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@JoeK2033, I'm afraid I see very little evidence that person is notable. Literally everything that comes up is a press release or interview or a crowdsourced directory listing, none of which help prove a claim to WP:Notability. Wikipedia isn't like other social media or directory sites. And the likelihood a governor's office staff or the writers of his State of the State address are notable is nil unless they're notable for something else already.

It sounds like you're trying to create articles about people who simply aren't notable. It's a waste of your time, and frankly it's a waste of other editors' time here, as someone has to deal with these creations. It's not unlikely the amount of work you are spending on trying to create articles for non-notable people is dwarfed by the amount of time others are spending dealing with this. Wikipedia volunteers' time is the project's most valuable resource, and we take it pretty seriously when someone is wasting other editors' time. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Enhanced.org

I'm not sure how long the webpage has been up, or whether there has been much of a response to it (I have seen one discussion), but I'll flag it up anyway: Enhanced.com, a campaign for the removal of restrictions on how athletes might seek to medically improve their performance, has a page[11] encouraging those who share their (deeply ill-advised) goals to edit pages to fit their idea of 'inclusive' language.

I'm not sure whether there have been many attempts to act on this, or what steps are necessary (A post on the talk pages for regular editors on those pages to be alert? Warnings on those pages about sanctions for those who try to do this?), so I leave that to discussion and higher authority, but I just wanted to make people aware of the campaign. Apologies if it has been raised before, or if this is not the appropriate place. Kevin McE (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kevin McE thanks for this but it's already flagged see the section #Possible upcoming edits encouraged by Peter Thiel above. Nthep (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

HERitage Amplified edit-a-thon in Cyprus on en.wiki

Hi, this is only an announcement that on Saturday, 10^th of February, 2024, from 09:30 to 16:30 will be held an edit-a-thon by Wikimedia Community User Group Cyprus for the first time, and they are expecting a lot of new editors and many articles.

They (@AProdromou and @Magioladitis) would advise every new inexperienced editors to edit in their sandboxes, but still it may happen some new page to be published in the main namespace, so they request a patience, as they will check the articles after the event.

I hope this was the right place for this announcement. On the behalf of the organisers of this event, thanks in advance. --TRistovski-CEEhub (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems as good as place as any. English Wikipedia doesn't let newly-created users create pages in mainspace, so you shouldn't really have much to worry about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Abusive and threatening posts on Talk: Ivan Katchanovski

IP user 174.92.47.171 has made a series of recent posts on Talk: Ivan Katchanovski that need admin attention. This appears to be a single purpose account. The user purports to be the subject of the article and makes a variety of paranoid claims about the actions of certain editors who have contributed to the page. This is part of a continuing pattern of threatening behavior by anonymous accounts with links to Ivan Katchanovski. Nangaf (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be best to try to engage with the IP. If I could remember the link I would advise them to make an account and verify their identity. I just scanned the two sections at the bottom of Talk:Ivan Katchanovski and they look like what would be written by an unhappy person with a typical level of understanding about Wikipedia's procedures. That is, they need guidance. If that were unsuccessful, admin action might be needed. If there are threatening words, please quote some so they can be found. Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to explain a few of the issues to IP-Katchanovski, as has @My very best wishes (courtesy ping), which is commendable given that Katchanovski doxxed him in one of his works. Limited success has been achieved as IP-Katchanovski has continued to dump walls of text and drop sources that are not always up to our standards and sometimes in foreign languages, suggesting nefarious reasons for their non-inclusion when there are simpler explanations such as sourcing policies and language barriers. I understand he wants his bio to look better, but there's a point where he seems to want it to puff him up, and he doesn't seem to take criticism well.

I do not know what direct admin action could improve the situation, but there are some things that might be worth looking at. As mentioned, Katchanovski published the identities of some Wikipedia editors in one of his articles. This personal data was then shared here by user Prohoshka (these contributions have since been revedelled), who at the time got away with a slap on the wrist. Now IP-Katchanovski seems to suggest Prohoshka is a sockpuppet of user Wise2. I do not think IP-Katchanovski knows how to open a report at SPI (or what SPI is), but if an administrator/checkuser wants to have a go at it, it might assuage IP-Katchanovski's concerns. I also think that someone might want to tell user Nangaf to take a step back from the article. I was less than thrilled with his attitude at AfD in the past and it hasn't gotten any better, which doesn't really help. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ostalgia: You are welcome to your opinion. I would note that I did, by your own admission, step away from the page for several months, only for you to troll me on the talk page, as well as here: so perhaps you could take your own advice. Nangaf (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Croissant

Something strange is happening on wikipedia croissant page: two anonymous IP and an user who created his account this month started modifying the page removing Austria origin and the references. They also started an argument from a very biased POV to justify their edits 79.54.217.132 (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

For context, there was significant discussion on the article talk page involving a number of both logged-in and IP users, and quite a solid consensus emerged in favour of the page's current state. This user here has asserted at different times that either consensus has yet to be reached or that it exists in entirely in the opposite direction to justify restoring their preferred version of the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue on the Croissant page probably hasn't escalated to the point of outright edit warring yet. However, the above user does now appear to be engaged in a similar kind of edit war on the Capuccino article (see history). AntiDionysius (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the user AntiDyonysius is one of the many suspect accounts who first changed the article BEFORE a new consensus was reached and then tried to manipulate facts for his covenience 79.54.217.132 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This account was made in 2023 and i suspect he is a puppet account of Xiaomichael 79.54.217.132 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I have semi protected the page for a week to encourage the IP to use the Talk page discussion. While we're not at 3RR, that's not required for it to be edit warring, which it is.IP 79, if you have proof, please file an SPI otherwise please do not make such accusations. Star Mississippi 17:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right 79.54.217.132 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Communication and User:Lades2222

Today I tried to resolve a MOS dispute with User:Lades2222 regarding the excessive use of <br> in visa related articles on their talk page because of the potential accessibility issue (rationale #1, #2, #3). I suggested that if they think the margins between paragraphs are too big, they should resort to userstyle first so it doesn't break the overall uniformity of article. Unfortunately it was proven a little bit difficult to talk to this editor. I tried very hard to explain to them that it's a like a personal setting, and no, I don't have permission to edit their userstyle and they need to do that themself, but they wouldn't budge, and asking me to "apply the CSS" for them despite my repeated explanations.

The editor called me "stubborn", teased me that 'well you don't know how to do that!', and said they felt "threatened" when I (or another editor who politely) quoted Wikipedia policy and MOS guideline to them, or even the mere act of leaving a message on their talk page. I mentioned that communication is vital in a collaborative project, which they don't really agree to. Their problem on collaborating also extends to accusing other editors of destroying their work and "fighting back until the end", "intentionally sabotaging" them (in edit summary) over content disagreement.

NM 10:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are you dragging me into the conflict? It will be resolved if the parties do not discuss further. I don't want any more arguments. Lades2222 (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Administrator, This is my opinion.

I'm not yet familiar with editing beyond a beginner level. So I asked him to show me the solution to the problem. And I told him not to explain it in words. I could have gone to the problematic page and edited it myself, but I refused. After that I lost the will to talk. He was sincere in his ‘explanation’. However, if the other person does not understand, I think that true dialogue involves making the other person understand by directly showing the solution. Lades2222 (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

And I told him not to explain it in words.

I'm sorry, how do you expect someone to explain it without using words? We're not going to make a YouTube video documenting the steps. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that true dialogue involves making the other person understand by directly showing the solution.

I have already explained how to do it yourself multiple times (attempt #1 #2 #3). I have also explained the "I don't have permission to edit your userstyle" thing on multiple occasions (attempt #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6). You ignored all of my attempts of communicating. NM 17:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't understand the solution just from your explanation and links (#1, #2..). Because I'm not an advanced editor yet. So I was hoping I could go to "that page" and see through the edits how you coded the 'CSS'. You can just edit the page as usual.

Then (after), I was thinking of looking at the 'history' of the page to see how the CSS was applied.

It's sad that people are accusing me of being a bad person by spreading a problem that only the two of us can handle publicly.

But now that it has come to this.. i hope that we will not have any more arguments.Lades2222 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I’m a Wikipedian user and I edit articles with references but there are two moderators who revert my edits for no reason and they’re abusing their admin commands with the name of Shadow4dark and Pbritti RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you 1) spoken to them about your concerns and 2) notified them of this discussion as required? Neither one of them is an administrator. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure? They have commands RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you please like just do something with them it’s not their first time it’s like the twice even in my draft RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a sockpuppet. Please see here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stewards Election and Confirmation

The Stewards Election and Confirmation is currently taking place until 27 February. Interested editors can participate in the election here and the confirmation here.

Currently, 11 editors are running to become stewards, and 27 stewards are running to be reconfirmed; I have attempted to provide a neutral summary of the process and the editors running to be elected or confirmed at the Village Pump. BilledMammal (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol backlog

I hope I'm not overstepping by posting here, but my train of thought is that the new page patroller perm is bundled with the sysop toolkit. If there any admins interested in giving it a go, we could use the extra help. :) There's currently a redirect backlog of more than 20,000 pages, which is quite substantial. There is also about 9,000 unreviewed articles as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Long-term abuse

• PETERNGUYENVANHUNG1958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) harassment me, this is a long term abuse (LTA: Nipponese Dog Calvero).

Ayane ^話す! 01:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rim sim

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Rim sim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Rim sim (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan related articles, imposed at [12], logged at [13]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[14]

Statement by Rim sim

I was recently notified[15] by User:Vanamonde93 that a topic ban on my account, imposed by User:Callanecc on 11 April 2014 isn't lifted yet. I believe this topic ban, which was imposed within four months of starting my account, can be lifted now. The cause of this ban was my erratic editing and behaviour etiquette at that time-when I was really a novice. After making a few appeals then on talk pages, I was told to contribute positively in other topics by making proper edits and show that I learnt proper editing and behaviour etiquette, so that my ban can be lifted. I did so till the end of that year (2014) and then left Wikipedia altogether. After returning back seven years later (Dec 2021), I checked whether there are any blocks on my account, as there were none[16], I mistook it as being free of any bans, and started to edit. I have since made some positive contributions[17]. Taking into consideration these unique circumstances and the fact that I haven't been on any erring side, I hope this topic ban, which is now almost ten years old is lifted soon. Rim sim (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc

I am comfortable for this ban to be lifted but wanted community review, rather than doing so myself, given the large number of edits which have breached it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Rim sim

• I think there's a good prima facie case for lifting the sanction. Yes, Rim sim violated the topic ban recently which led to this appeal. Ordinarily that's not something that lends itself to a successful appeal, but I find the explanation reasonable. 2014 was a long time ago, and confusing a block and ban is an easy mistake to make for a new editor given how they're the same thing on most websites. I did a quick spot check of recent contributions, especially ones to Hinduism and IPA topic areas that were technically violations. They seem like reasonable and uncontroversial improvements, no issues there. Unless anyone provides evidence to the contrary, I'd be willing to accept the appeal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• 10 years is a long time. I'd grant it just on age alone. And going further, Wikipedia is at the point (20+ years) where it probably makes sense to have a rule that all sanctions automatically expire after some period of inactivity, like 5 years or 10 years. It's not worth modern day editors taking time to look at stuff that happened 5-10+ years ago if nothing has happened in the interim. Auto-sunseting sanctions would save everyone time and the risks are very low. Levivich (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Ditto The Wordsmith, and a sunset clause is a good idea too; realistically, if someone still needs a tban after ten years, there's an odds-on chance that they probably shouldn't (and even more realistically, wouldn't) still be editing. ——Serial 17:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Lift the ban. This whole situation seems to be 100% in good faith. If he errs again, an admin can drop the ban hammer just as quickly. As for lifetime bans, I'd say there are some whose acts are so egregious that a true lifetime ban is warranted, but that is certainly the exception and not the rule. I think a board should review and adjudicate these on a regular basis (every 5 or 10 years). Learning from past mistakes is growth...we should encourage it. Buffs (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
• FYI I pulled this out of autoarchive. Levivich (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

RFPP

I'm sorry if this seems pushy - from what I can see on this page there's a lot on the admins proverbial plate - but there is currently a backlog of around 38 requests at requests for page protection. If anyone here would like to take a crack at that when they can it would be appreciated. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 02:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)