User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

Awdal page edit warring has continued by same user after your partial block lifted

Hi User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

I just want to point your attention to the Awdal page. Since the partial block was lifted, the editor Hawkers994 has fully resumed edit warring with multiple different editors in relation to the exact same content despite being blocked twice already prior to that. The page had to be protected yesterday due to the frequency of the edit warring.

During previous weeks you made it quite clear to myself and Hawkers994 that we should not edit the demographics section on the Awdal page without concensus or we would be banned which is why I completely stopped editing the page. You could check fully. This is what you wrote regarding the partial block: "I've blocked you from the article for a month for immediately going back to the article with no discussion on the talk page." ([[1]]).

He has already been blocked twice already for the exact same violation but has chosen to resume anyway. Please have a look at the timeline of edits since the partial block was lifted last week specifically on the 14th and 18th Dec. This was your enforcement of the partial block for the user who has already been blocked twice before: ([[2]])

MustafaO (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MustafaO His recent edits are actually fine. User:Wadamarow and User:Abdihakimper should be the ones looked at. Removing content without using a edit summary and calling all other edits vandalism is both a no-go. I'd recommend either putting the article under ECP or warning/blocking the editors under CT/HORN. Also, why are you (MustafaO) calling him out, when he is restoring the text that originally you added? Nobody (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi User talk:1AmNobody24

Thank you for the question, just to update you on this particular case, yes in normal circumstances I would absolutely agree, but myself and Hawkers994 were told clearly by User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish not to engage within that specific content area of the page without using the talk pages or make any edits without consensus that would affect that particular section in the page and accuracy of information isn'tnecessary in case of dispute. Both of us have previously been partially blocked before for making similar reversals.

I dont know about whether or not the other users have received similar warnings, I think Abdihakimper has, but I assume lack of knowledge on how the edit summary works is his main problem as he seems to be a new user. I previously warned Abdihakimper some time ago on his talk page to clarify his edits before making them myself. But we've been told not to make edits without consensus. If that injunction didn't continue then I would like for there to be some clarification because I stopped completely but the other side did not.

MustafaO (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I won't have a chance to look into this for quite some time. If you believe it needs urgent attention I suggest you go to WP:ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok understood and will do, I do intend to arbitrate, but could you check it for a moment? I previously received a partial block for an entire month for making one reversal. Should there not be at least some level of sanction/warning to the user appropriate to the level of sanction who did more than one reversal?

MustafaO (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

So am i understanding it correctly that you agree that his latest edits are fine, you just don't like he's editing the page when you're not? Nobody (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion, allow me to explain more clearly, I had an issue with the misuse of a citation that doesn't even show the content of what the user used it for. Have a look at the citation yourself ([[3]]). Does it even show anything when you open it? Exactly. It's fraudulent Original research using a dead citation. It's frustrating because it shouldn't have even reached this far.

So I absolutely don't agree with the edit due to what I just mentioned, so I am disputing it but I respected the injunction enough that I abandoned even the idea to edit the page even with what is essentially original research. Having a look at the citation is enough. It doesn't even work. I wanted to get a 3rd opinion and/or establish a community concensus. But it seems that the other user can still reverse to his original edit without impunity. It takes a minute to check. Please have a look at the citation. So yes that and the fact that the user is now in violation of this injunction which I and he previously got a partial block which I feel is deserving of sanction. It was the exact same violation.

MustafaO (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the book and know that it's not mentioning the content? Or are you assuming It's OR because you cant access it/find it online? (Asking because Wikipedia:Offline sources exists). Nobody (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I scoured for the content inside the book which is partially available and couldn't find anything inside the book using the search function in the link regarding the content he added on the Awdal page. What he did mention on the Awdal page is not accessible which is interestingly convenient. Anybody could use any non accessible source and just add what they want. The reason why I mentioned OR was because there was a discussion I had a while ago and he admittedly stated that the source doesn't fully reflect the content exactly but was inferring and using it anyway which seems to me that there was a specific motivation to have that content remain whether or not there is any citation that is valid. I also asked for a pic of the book or evidence and they did not send anything. I added the next section in the line of the paragraph which is a plethora of sources effectively stating opposite to what the content stated because I wanted to invoke Special claims which contradict majority of sources need exceptional sources aswell as a reason why it should be removed. I think there is no need for it to be there because not one clean source mentions or supports the content. The search function in the link works. It takes a moment to select key words and use the function and nothing comes up. I just find it inconvenient that it takes this long to fix a relatively simple vandal edit. This is on top of the user violating the injunction and reediting with impunity.

MustafaO (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

For situations like these exists WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I created a request there to find out if it's actually true or not. Nobody (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

User talk: 1AmNobody24 He hasn’t even attempted to read the book or source, he is denying that a certain community live in this region due to his prejudice, even though the source clearly states the content. This is the 5th time with different moderator he has been told not to delete this content as its sourced Hawkers994 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

He hasnt unfortunately, written as Haber-awal on the search bar on page 9 should clear up this whole argument. Hawkers994 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you mention what the source states and the relationship it has with the content that you wrote? Please share it with us

MustafaO (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

User talk:1AmNobody24 Please have a look and establish this once and for all MustafaO (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

"Should the mention of the Habr Awal/Isaaq remain on the Awdal page?"

That is the question. Also is it ok to add the new discussion on the actual discussion on the talk page? I don't wish to repeat every point that I made on it.MustafaO (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

The question is written above but Ill write it here again:

"Should the mention of the Habar Awal remain on the Awdal page?"

Can you attach it on the Awdal talk page for the WP:RFC?

Could you as as administrator not make the decision yourself? You've seen how there was only one old citation that contradicts multiple sources. I believe this should be put to rest now by messaging the other user and asking to bring more sources as it is contested. That should bring this all to an end. I don't even believe it should reach this far in all honesty. Everyone in the talk page discussion that we had agreed except him. That should be enough? The page shouldn't be held hostage by one user pushing their edit based on a contradictory source. I even cited several Wikipedia rules for acceptable sources.

MustafaO (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Please do inform me of the findings and my request would be to remove the content if it isn't found which is fair. User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish, apologies for the constant tagging, I'll stop but the edit war is raging as we speak which includes more than one guilty party. Whether or not the edits are correct, the other user wasn't supposed to engage at all. Please have a look. Thank you.

MustafaO (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

User talk:1AmNobody24 I was reading Wikipedia:Offline sources and the usage section which states that there should be some provision that is added when using an offline source. Especially considering this source that is being used has no E-book available online conveniently as it states in the source: ([[4]]). It seems there isn't much activity on the Resource page and this 'source' which is really non existent is being used to push specific content. On top of that his use of that source violates WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:EXTRAORDINARY because every source on the topic states otherwise, just look at the plethora of sources I added on that section. Over 10 sources contradict this one source that is non existent that I could provide you right now, if you need it just ask, I put only a few in the page when to establish the alternative to that content once it was allowed to remain. Why should it take this long to remove a vandal edit using that source that is clearly motivated?

MustafaO (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Why should sourced content from a book be removed simply because you don’t agree that a certain community lives in a region, even though you yourself have used the same book as source in the article. The source clearly states that they do live

and inhabit this region as well as trade and other customs. Prejudice views are not tolerated in Wikipedia. Hawkers994 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Show where it says they inhabit the region. I cant seen to find it at all using the search function at all. Do you have a copy of the book at home that you can scan?

MustafaO (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly the discussion that needs to be happening at the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and I dont mind but I think it's a fruitless back and forth with him even if we go on the talk page, because the source is non existent and he will say it says something, that cannot be searched for so it's a dead end. The search function even if used doesn't yield anything. I don't understand how it even reached this far. He states something yet there is no function on the search page. For me the only way I see this as justifiable is if there is another clear citation. Until then it would be better for it to be removed and that's how Wikipedia always functioned. There needs to be a clear citation. A consensus can be reached once the content of this source can be read, searched for but the source itself states that the E-book is not available. Even then does it say what he says verbatim, how can we verify?

MustafaO (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion is absolutely necessary, even if you don't think it will be productive. Worst case is after you find that there's no compromise, and you're unable to verify the source you start an rfc that brings in uninvolved editors and actually establish consensus. I'm not going to make any call, and I can't make any call, on the content itself. All I can do is tell you how to proceed and keep blocking everyone and protecting the page when the edit warring resumes.

Also, please make sure your messages are complete before posting them. Every time edit a comment I get an email and a notification. I'm up to 22 from you today. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish The Admins have done a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request which came back positive HERE finally we can all put this roundabout like discussion behind us. Hawkers994 (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994 Im about to start a section here as a recap. Nobody (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

Apologies for the message so soon. I was looking at the options available and was wondering what the next steps are regarding the issues on the Awdal page? I believe I showcased more than enough evidence stating my case which is why I believe the content should be removed even without the need to have to go for arbitration however I'm willing to go through whatever channel is required to fix a problem I feel is an affront to the encyclopedia. MustafaO (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish

@1AmNobody24

What process is there now for the Awdal page? Just wondering what the next steps are as it's been a few days and no resolution. I think most people who contributed their opinion on the talk page discussion ultimately sided with the points I raised regarding removing the content until multiple sources explicitly stating the content added is bought. Any chance you can conclude the matter in that regard once and for all? All of the users apart from the editor directly involved all stated the same. If not, then what process can be done? You mentioned WP:RFC? Anything at this point would be welcome.

MustafaO (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you should open an RFC with a neutrally worded, brief RFC statement. If you need assistance formulating the RFC I can provide some help with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

I don't know how to do it, any chance you can open it for us on the same talk page? You woupd probably be able tonword it best and in a neutral way.

MustafaO (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the question you'd like to have resolved? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

The content on the page contradicts multiple sources that are easily accessible and is only backed up by one old citation which is ambiguous. I would like to ask is it valid to make a request to remove the content until multiple explicit sources that support the content is found per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Also it is not fair to give significant coverage to the content in the article based on that citation per WP:UNDUE.

I'm not sure how to word the question, but maybe is it valid to remove the content based on one old citation which contradicts all current known sources until more valid sources are found?

Sorry for the long winding comment. I just wanted to add context.

MustafaO (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of "Should the article state that whatever subclan has a population in Awdal?" The question itself should be short and neutral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

Only contention I would have is, the question probably requires a bit more context because I don't have any qualms with content that is backed up by acceptable sources. The issue here is about an old citation being used that contradicts multiple sources. Is it possible that the discussion is held on the talk page? At least then anyone making a judgement can see the context at play. Everyone wpuld agree that a citation ststing anything is fine to use. However when its old and it contradicts multiple sources then this context is essential.

MustafaO (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Stick with the basic question, and provide the context you'd like in your !vote or in the discussion section of the rfc. So what is the basic question? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

I think a neutral question would be: "Should a disputed citation be allowed to use to support content if it contradicts multiple sources on the Awdal page"?

You can word it around and edit it if you wish.

MustafaO (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

That's an argument, not an rfc statement. What is the actual question at hand? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

"Should the mention of the Habr Awal/Isaaq remain on the Awdal page?"

That is the question.

MustafaO (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be more clear for the uninvolved editors who will be brought by the rfc bot. Perhaps something like "Should the Isaaq clan be mentioned as a part of the population of Habr Awal?" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

Sorry was using my phone and it became difficult to read so had to make some space.

Yes its perfect, just one correction:

"Should the Habr Awal/Isaaq clan be mentioned as a part of the population of Awdal?" Could the discussion take place on the exact same discussion we had so the uninvolved editors can look at the discussion that was previously had? Also, I don't think this is an issue of a simple vote alone. It's important to actually see the discussion aswell because of the full context. I personally don't think it should have reached this far because all of the editors in the talk page discussion already agreed except him. I think a simple message to him to bring more sources would have put an end to it. Apologies for additional edits and messages attached.

MustafaO (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion will be visible in the section above the rfc. I strongly suggest that you stay away from making too many contributions to the rfc, as extended back and forths tend to reduce overall participation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much. I will not be make too many contributions.

MustafaO (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

I think it would be a good idea to have some level of protection remain on the Awdal page whilst disputing editors comtinue any discussion. Now that your current restriction has ended anonymous IP accounts are already causing mayhem which is an extra added problem. Semi protection at the least would be advisable.

MustafaO (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I resumed the indefinite semi-protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you MustafaO (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I hope you have a great 2024 as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ScottishFinnishRadish!

Happy New Year!

ScottishFinnishRadish,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy new year to you as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi. I have appealed the sanction you opposed on me here. Thank you very much and a Happy New Year. Dovidroth (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Half Barnstar
		You were very fast on blocking the bad username that was reported to U.A.A shortly before! Sadbunny3 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you intervene please?

Hi, I would like to ask for your attention regarding the complaint at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Biased_editing_on_contentious_topic. Two users, one of whom you have warned to "tone it down" [5] and where a different administrator warned to stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING, are completely misbehaving. They are systematically forum shopping and posting false complaints about me to smear my reputation at irrelevant places, as seen here: [6]. I am not here to defend myself and be personally attacked on a daily basis. This is completely demotivating. Marokwitz (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that I've seen this. I'm under the weather (again) so I'm less active, but I've seen it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, feel well ! Marokwitz (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

BANEXEMPT question

Since I am repeatedly raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions:_PIA_Canvassing, may I participate in the discussion? nableezy - 23:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy, yes, that's a reasonable request. With the understanding that this is particularly prickly, I ask that you do your best to keep your cool and don't take any bait. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

MGTOW

Thanks, I was just starting a AN3 report and you saved me some paperwork. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I've had my eye on that for a few days and was hoping with the number of editors reverting they'd catch the drift and seek consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion in WikiProject report proposal

Hello, I am writing a draft WikiProject report for WP:SIGNPOST about WikiProjects Israel/Palestine and wanted to include the perspective of admins who are monitoring the talk page of related articles. Since you're recently one of the active ones, would you be up for answering a few questions, and do you have recommendations of other admins as well? The questions I am thinking are along the lines of:

• Admins who enforce WP:ARBPIA sanctions cannot be WP:INVOLVED. What kind of knowledge/skill sets do admins need to intervene where not only WP:BEHAVIOUR (WP:Harassment, WP:Socking, WP:1RR but also complex content disputes arise?

• What is something you wished more editors knew or prepared before getting involved in editing topics covered by WP:ARBPIA?

If you're interested, I can link you a draft/follow up with you/other admins if you like. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be willing to answer a few questions. The only other admin that I know has been watching some talk pages is Bradv, although several more have been handling page protections and contributing at AE. That also doesn't mean there aren't more admins who are haunting those talk pages, but I haven't seen any popping up. There's also hundreds of articles in the topic area, so I may be watching different pages than others. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Forgot the ping. Shushugah. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish @Bradv amazing! Here is the draft btw Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish could you give this a priority if you have time? I believe the WP:SIGNPOST would like to publish very soon (they're already delayed on deadlines) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Shushugah, I've added some responses there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hello, can you take a look at this discussion at AN/I and either enforce A.Musketeer's violation of their TBAN from Sheikh Hasina, broadly construed, or explain why it's not a violation? Thanks, Malerisch (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I/P article moved without discussion

No consensus, no discussion, just a move. See [7]. Coretheapple (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Have you asked them to revert the move and open an rm? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I just did. Coretheapple (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We'll see how that turns out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Coretheapple, you may also want to start a discussion on the talk page to see if there's a rough consensus for the new title. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not a regular editor on that page and I don't feel comfortable about what would essentially be a kind of "unmove discussion" after it has been improperly moved without any discussion whatsoever. I think a better procedure would be for the move to be reverted and then a move discussion with a broad community consensus, which is essential in renaming articles in I/P. I would revert per the BRD cycle, but to be frank I'm not sure how to unmove a page and I don't want to screw it up.

As you know this is an extremely hot topic, even more hot than the Gaza war right now, due to the British and US airstrikes going on right now. That is how I wandered into this article in the first place---as a reader!. Coretheapple (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I was premature. Sorry about that. Say what is the procedure when things go off the rails in these articles? The idea of going to ANI gives me the chills, but I hate to come running to you every time there is a problem, as there always will be, and in fact currently exists in the main Gaza article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You can come here, make a content noticeboard post if it's related in that way, or even drop a neutral note at AN, rather than ANI, requesting a bit of admin attention on a particular discussion. What's the issue on the main Gaza article? I've been sick, so I'm trying to get caught up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Good ideas. Sorry about your illness.

The problem at the main Gaza talk page is that the 23 December Requested Move resulted in a consensus that "Israel Hamas War" would be the base title, with or without modification. This determination of consensus is not accepted by a number of editors, resulting in an !vote after the RM was closed, in which one of the options (G---"Change to Israel-Gaza War") runs contrary to the consensys determined just a few hours earlier. I pointed this out twice and was told to pound sand.[8]

After I left this note here, Chessrat began an RM consistent with the closing of the 23 December RM.

So we have on the same page a discussion that iseeks to overturn the consensus of the 23 December RM discussion, which really should be hatted, and another discussion on how to implement that consensus decision.

A fairly typlical situation in the I/P pages I would say. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Airlines and Destinations tables

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I wanted to propose a change to your close of this RFC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187 § RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to challenge the close, since I think your assessment of the consensus is generally accurate. I thought about waiting to discuss my ideas in User:A. B.'s closure challenge, but I'm not sure when they will have the chance to formulate and post it, and my stance on the RFC close is different from theirs anyway. So is it ok if I post my proposal here? Sunnya343 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I am proposing a change to the first paragraph of your closing summary and the common thread that you identified. My idea is to change the first paragraph to something like this:

After reviewing the !votes and discussion, it is clear that there is consensus that airlines and destination tables (or more specifically, the maintenance of complete, current lists of airlines and destinations) are generally not permitted per WP:NOT. Individual routes can be mentioned if reliable sources demonstrate they meet WP:NPOV. For some airports, all routes might fulfill that criterion. There is not a consensus for wholesale removal of such tables.

This is my reasoning:

1. I do not see a requirement for secondary sources in WP:DUE or WP:NPOV overall. (WP:BALANCE includes This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, but this is not applicable to the airlines and destinations of an airport.)
2. I believe WP:DUE should be broadened to WP:NPOV, since contributors to the RFC cited both the whole policy as well as different sections of it.
3. This common thread in the RFC:
   • Quotes from people who !voted "yes" (or qualified "yes"):
     • airport articles should include such tables when including a table would be due
     • the list need not be exhaustive
     • WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns
     • case-by-case makes the most encyclopedic sense; in general I would expect commercial airports with a handful of destinations would be the most suitable
     • For major airports like Heathrow, or Chicago IMHO it's not necessary: one can assume that there are many flights to & from many places involving those airports
     • If an airport only has flights to one or two other airports, for example, it would not serve the WP:READER well to not mention that
   • From people who !voted "no":
     • illustrative remarks on major and historic destinations, backed in depth by multiple independent WP:RS are quite a different matter
     • any routes that have enough coverage to be part of a BALANCED article can be discussed
     • If there are particularly interesting things about an airport, such as the aforementioned fact that KIND only has CYYZ and MMUN as international destinations, then those can be mentioned in prose
     • (My comment) it would be silly to insist that you may not explicitly mention the three flights available at the Kalamazoo airport. I'm sure you will find a good number of RS that discuss them in detail, given their significance to a small airport like Kalamazoo's
     • This would not preclude keeping information of genuinely encyclopedic interest
   • From editors who left other types of comments
     • all the usual guidelines relating to weight and reliable referencing (I'm thinking specifically of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) should still be considered
     • I don't see why it's needful to have a complete list, but to me, it seems appropriate and encyclopaedic to provide some indication of which areas an airport serves
     • We should provided enough details on destinations to allow readers to have a good understanding of the airports reach. For smaller regional airports this will likely be the complete list, whereas for large international airports perhaps condensing it into countries served would be more useful
     • outside of table, one can describe in prose the general profile of cities that it serves - I can see this for small regional airports to say what cities that they link to

For some background, I decided to propose this change after replacing the list in the Harry Reid Airport article with a summary. Nearly all the references I cited are primary. Indeed, when talking about an airport's current operations, I feel that it's inevitable to use primary sources (and I wouldn't consider them "bad" in this context). Perhaps some editors will wonder why maintaining up-to-date lists of airlines and destinations (which requires citing mainly primary sources) is not allowed, while a summary based on such sources is. Therefore, I think the closing summary should more clearly state that the consensus is that the lists are generally not permitted because of WP:NOT. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion ignores the (by far the strongest, as I pointed out in my close) policy based arguments. WP:NOT, which was widely cited 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. Deciding what primary sourced information to include fails WP:DUE or the same argument for inclusion would apply to the exact dimensions of causeways and terminals, the depth of the concrete and asphalt runways, or the number of toilets and sinks. Per footnote C in WP:DUE, The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered. There are likely hundreds of primary sources for the depth of the runway pavement including blueprints, permit applications, engineering reports, environmental studies, and more, but no one would argue that it would be due without independent secondary sources discussing it. Choosing one primary detail to include and not another is based on its prominence among Wikipedia editors, not the sources.

I think I made it very clear that NOT was the strongest rationale in my close, where I started Addressing the arguments, the strongest and by far most common argument put forth by those opposed to the tables is WP:NOTALLSORTSOFSTUFF. WP:NOT is policy, and the strength of the arguments citing it are recognized by those supporting inclusion of the tables. Including that in the first paragraph isn't necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't that threshold apply to determining whether a topic merits its own article (WP:N - A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject [...] "Sources" should be secondary sources), not to whether certain information should be included in an article (WP:NNC)? Also, in WP:NOT the word "secondary" is used only twice, and both cases have to do with WP:N.

Including all of those details about an airport's facilities that you mentioned would go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But I think it's sensible to include the dimensions and material of the runways, even though I can only find primary sources for that information. These are just a couple of details in the article that concern a key part of the airport's infrastructure, and I believe they don't violate WP:NOT. Are you saying that per WP:NPOV, those details should not be included either (not asking sarcastically)? I don't see how footnote C of WP:DUE would apply here, since we are discussing facts about an airport's infrastructure, not different viewpoints on a topic like evolution.

Another example is the Aer Lingus flight from Cleveland to Dublin, which is Cleveland's only direct flight to Europe. It began in May 2023. Secondary sources about the route now exist (e.g. [9]), but naturally did not when the flight began. Does that mean an editor writing in May 2023 would not be allowed to mention this flight in the Cleveland airport article, because only WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources on it were available at the time (e.g. [10], [11])? No, I think the editor should be allowed to mention it, since this was an event that reliable sources were giving weight to. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I read below that you do not intend to change the close. Does that mean you still disagree with my suggestion as well? Sunnya343 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That is correct, yes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Airlines and Destinations tables

Hello,

Is there any way I can convince you to overturn the RfC to no consensus before I start something on WP:AN? I didn't notice the RfC for whatever reason - haven't been editing as often - and it's starting to lead to editing issues.

My biggest issue with the close is that I think you picked a conclusion not supported by the RfC. The question was posed as a yes or no question. Very few users brought up secondary sourcing. Only one user brought up WP:DUE. There are two clear valid arguments in the RfC: that these violate WP:NOT, and that they don't, of which the don'ts had a slightly higher number. (I think the WP:NOT argument is flawed, but only a few users made similar arguments, and the counter-argument is more difficult to put together. I'll spare you for now.)

In doing so you changed the status quo from the previous rule of tables acceptable per numerous prior RfCs, only new destinations needing explicit sourcing (agreed through consensus) to one where there's now a big argument about what sort of sourcing is necessary for these tables to exist.

Fortunately the arguments have been pretty limited due to the lack of enforcement. As far as I can tell, only two destination tables have been removed so far, including the one at Harry Reid International Airport, which has set off a huge edit conflict. If there hadn't been an RfC, the conflict would be easily solved - only one user is advocating for removal of the destination tables. And if you paruse through the history, you'll see what a huge impact this has had, because the tables are some of the most gnomed bits of the entire site, mostly by users who don't participate in RfCs. One non-RfC participant has already been blocked for personal attacks. Another user here threatened to withhold any future donations. I only learned about this because I noticed the destination table had been removed and didn't understand why - the sourcing as it stands seems fine to me. Whether they previously donated I have no idea, but the problem with the close as it stands is it's left the community in this weird limbo. I checked two airports I'm familiar with and none of the gnomes participated in the RfC.

The best way to solve this would be to simply change your close in the RfC to a no consensus, which I think is an accurate reading of the discussion in the context of the RfC based on your text, and one that doesn't draw in arguments which were made by only one or two out of the over fifty participants.

I do appreciate your attempt at closing it! SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll add to SportingFlyer's comments that there was an earlier RFC about WP:NOT and these sorts of tables in general (buses, boats, trains, planes) that affirmed that they were not a violation of WP:NOT. As I see it, that interpretation is still in effect. It doesn't affect other objections that were raised.

Finally, I'll note that the kvetching at Talk: Harry Reid International Airport and low-grade edit-warring on the article itself provide a foretaste of much wider spread disputation when we start deleting these tables from several thousand airport articles. I've relied on these tables for years and apparently others have, too. I've found myself in the ironic position on the talk page of upholding the RfC outcome against a mini-insurrection I privately agree with. —-A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident of my reading of consensus in that discussion, so I will not be changing my close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC closure review

I have requested closure review for the RFC on lists of airlines and destinations; please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)