User talk:FOARP

Archives

August 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 April 2022 May 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 November 2022 December 2022 January 2023 February 2023 May 2023 August 2023 October 2023 November 2023 February 2024

In your close, you wrote that the move was acceptable to the Nom, but I nowhere agreed to it. I am not asking you to undo the close, but to strike this comment from your rationale, since Necrothesp is under the mistaken impression that title agreed at RM. In fact, nobody agreed about anything. Srnec (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of those "split the difference" closes where it was either close as no consensus or see where people appeared to agree with each other. This appeared to be acceptable to you and since you are not asking for the close to be reversed I assume is still not unacceptable to you, However, I've struck the comment as asked. FOARP (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is "acceptable" to me, but I want to be clear that I did not "agree" to it over and against alternatives. In fact, I think disambiguating deceased persons by birth dates alone is silly. It is unfortunate that that is the guideline. I have been opposed to it for as long as I remember. Full date ranges make the most sense. Thank you for striking. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may think it's silly. I happen to disagree, as do many others (which is why DOB disambiguation generally has consensus at RM). But, in fact, you didn't move them to full date ranges anyway. You moved them from DOB to DOD, knowing very well that this was neither the closure decision at RM nor (as you have just admitted) standard disambiguation. So I'm really not sure why you made the decision to move them. It seems a bit weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong that I knew very well that this was [not] standard disambiguation. I made a BOLD move after the closure to switch from birth dates to death dates. You reverted. I was about to open a new RM when I checked the guideline and learned that birth dates are usually preferred. I work mainly in per-modern areas where such dates are often unknown. Death dates are the norm in my area. Community consensus is strongly against full date ranges and that is what I have long opposed. Srnec (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But FOARP had already closed as a move to DOB and then moved them as such. In those circumstances, you really had no good reason to move them again unless you had failed to read both the RM debate and the page history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp - agree. This is not a move allowable under WP:BOLDMOVE since we already just had an RM, and @Srnec (who is saying that the RM move was acceptable to them) should not have done it even if they didn't know about the consensus in favour of DOB. FOARP (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FOARP,

I been seeing a lot of broken redirects, like right here, because you do not leave redirects when you move article talk pages (or any talk pages). Please do so as in this case, another editor had to recreate the missing pages in order to fix all of the broken redirects that then occurred so they would not be deleted. I'm not sure why Page Movers often omit leaving behind a redirect when they move articles and talk pages but it seems to be common behavior and frequently results in broken redirects.

If you don't want to leave a redirect when you move a Talk page then please check "What links here" and correct all of the existing redirects that have become broken. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Liz, will try harder to cover this. There is a very large backlog at RM and I'm trying to handle it. FOARP (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FOARP, I wanted to say that I concur with the gist of your comments in the deletion review on lists of airline destinations.

Regarding your comments on airline fandom, I do have to say that the only thing that matters is the arguments, not editors' background. I went too far in the British Airways AfD by trying to be "objective" and reviewing people's contribution histories... You can see what happened in the AfD, and I know what I did was wrong.

It's true, though, that this AfD attracted more attention from the people who actually edit these lists and value them. Naturally it's more likely that they !vote Keep, which is completely fine, but they need to provide strong arguments. I agree with you there that their and other Keep !voters' arguments were weak. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think it was a mistake bringing an AFD against all of those articles in one go, at least without a statement about what the articles shared and a review to ensure they all shared those characteristics. There's a reluctance to even look at the sourcing for these articles - the fandom wants the discussion to be about how useful the articles supposedly are, or about the bounds of what is encyclopedic, but not about the real content of the articles - but this can be overturned by grouping articles with similar sourcing and pointing out that all of them fail even just on pure sourcing grounds.

Instead the discussion has again become about why Wikipedia should host fan content, which is a discussion that is bound to be fruitless. FOARP (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my rationale I essentially wrote that all the lists I was nominating were no different from converting the airline's April 2024 route map into the format of a list. I went into more detail about referencing in the United/Lufthansa/American and Aeroflot AfDs but wanted to be more concise this time. Anyway, the Aeroflot AfD was closed as Keep...

I know that the AN discussion left us with this method of doing multiple AfDs, but given that there is no fundamental difference between any of the lists, whether they're stand-alone or embedded within the parent articles, I don't think this strategy made sense. I'm starting to support the idea of having another RfC that notifies all interested parties as OwenX said. An all-or-nothing RfC. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it important for the people who wish to overturn the existing RFC consensus to bring a new one. An AFD cannot overturn an RFC. FOARP (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, people are now inclined to dismiss the 2018 RfC because of its age and limited participation. Actually people had already dismissed it in this February 2018 deletion review. The outcome was summarized in the AfD record: "overturned at review on the basis that a consensus at VPP could not over-ride one at AFD". Sunnya343 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that an RFC consensus is worthless so long as enough fans turn up to cast "I like this" votes at AFD. If so, what is the point of a further RFC if we are simply going to ignore CONLEVEL? FOARP (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that an RFC consensus is worthless so long as enough fans turn up to cast "I like this" votes at AFD. I agree with you, and that's what I tried to demonstrate in the deletion review. Nevertheless, as long as we continue to point to that 2018 RfC, people will continue to highlight its limited participation, especially from the people who actually maintain the lists. I think the key is to have a widely-notified, well-attended discussion on all of these lists – stand-alone lists, the ones in airline articles, and the ones in airport articles* – and to demonstrate clearly how they undermine our first pillar (not that we haven't done so already...).

*Earlier you'd said that you think the lists in airport articles are different. Do you still feel that way? Consider John F. Kennedy International Airport § Airlines and destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think bringing a much bigger issue into this (and the fans of that issue...) before this issue is even resolved is misguided and unwise. I also think it is unlikely that any RFC is going to change anyone's mind of this since, being fans of this subject matter, they are simply not going to at any point acknowledge that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia - at most, if they engage with any RFC outcome at all, they will simply dismiss it as "Wikilawyering" as they already did immediately after the 2018 RFC. FOARP (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think bringing a much bigger issue into this (and the fans of that issue...) before this issue is even resolved is misguided and unwise. You may be right. But perhaps there could be an RfC like this:

What action should we take regarding A) the lists of airline destinations in or split from airline articles, and B) the lists of airline destinations in airport articles?

• Option 1: Keep A and B
• Option 2: Delete A only
• Option 3: Delete B only
• Option 4: Delete A and B

This format doesn't leave room for people who think "case by case", though. "Case by case" doesn't make sense since these are all just compilations of flight-schedule data, but people may argue that differences exist.

Anyway, that's just an idea. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested about another RfC: "Having a new RFC that no-one can claim they didn't know about will both deal with these articles and any future issues." Sunnya343 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as an RFC that no-one will claim they didn’t know about. We had people accusing us of hiding the AFDs and we literally posted them to CENT!

I also think we are likely to run in to the typical response to RFCs on questions where policy is already clear: if policy is already clear, why is the RFC even needed? Let the people who want to overturn our existing policies against product-catalogues bring the RFC and let them deal with that response.

Don’t feel that you have to be the one who brings the RFC. In fact, it is better if it is not you since people will simply try to make you out to be a “deletionist troublemaker” - let someone else do it, preferably someone who wants to restore the already-deleted articles. FOARP (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if policy is already clear, why is the RFC even needed? I agree. I respect the people who maintain the lists; I myself have made hundreds of edits to the ones in airport articles. But we have to be honest: our list of current British Airways destinations is just this map in list format. This is what we've had so many debates about since 2007.

let someone else do it, preferably someone who wants to restore the already-deleted articles You're probably right. You don't know how many discussions I've started over the years about the lists in airport articles... Sunnya343 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is how the RfC question would be worded. If it's not worded properly, people will dismiss it for that reason. This happened in the RfC that I started last year. I also wanted to ask what you think of the comment Thryduulf made in that RfC that starts with There are, at a basic level. In my view, the comment vastly overcomplicates the matter to the point that no discussion of it would be possible. And who is going to create a list in the style of Comprehensive, including most but not necessarily all – "Here's a list of most of the cities that British Airways flies to as of April 2024". Or, "Here's a bunch of lists of the airline's destinations from each decade of its existence". What? Thryduulf appears to be addressing problems that don't exist.

I bring this up because I imagine that he would make the same argument in an RfC limited to the "type A" lists I mentioned above. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid any such RFC wording and let the people who want to restore the already-deleted articles bring the RFC. Don’t try to create a “solve-everything” RFC. The point is the community already approved deleting the majority of these articles and they didn’t only do it based on the 2018 RFC. The onus is on the people who want product-catalogue articles sourced (if they are sourced at all) ultimately to the company that sells those products to justify the existence of those articles. FOARP (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they didn’t only do it based on the 2018 RFC – Good point. I actually said something similar in the AfD: "It's not necessarily the case that I seek to enforce the RfC. Yes, I believe the RfC closure should be taken into account, as well as the subsequent AfDs. However, the outcome of this AfD should also rest on the argument I made at the top of this page, which is my own argument and is not identical to the closure of the RfC or the rationales of previous nominators."

This makes me think that it would be easier to omit any mention of the 2018 RfC in a future AfD. That way people don't spend time debating whether the RfC consensus is valid; they just focus on the arguments. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think the AFD did somehow cancel out the RFC... how could it when it closed as no consensus? But I understand that others may not share that view. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's confusing. I feel like if the RfC had received the same attention that this AfD did, the outcome would likely have been different, as it was a "solve-everything" RfC that attempted to delete two (former) featured lists, ones with prose, etc. So I agree with you and Rosbif73 about proceeding with bundled AfDs. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had one more question. Is there anything to be done about the lists that have been recreated in the parent articles, e.g. airBaltic § Destinations? I don't edit airline articles much so it's not a big concern of mine, but I wanted to ask. I can already imagine the sequence of events: I delete the list, someone reverts me, I go to the talk page and cite the relevant AfD, they bring up the RfC (even though the AfD wasn't solely based on it), maybe we go to DRN... I don't have the energy for that, and I doubt the wider community does either after all the discussions I've started. Sunnya343 (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lists within airline articles at this stage just aren’t a big issue. FOARP (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You did say in the Air Midwest AfD that It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category. I’ve got one more list of another ~100 poorly-sourced articles to go nominate after this one, but then we really should just mass-delete the remaining ~200! My intention isn't to say "gotcha!" though. As you know I agree with your point-of-view on these lists. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't do it in the end, since I think without a full analysis of the sourcing of each article it is hard to do. FOARP (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I know what you mean. I'm just unsure about doing another 20+ AfDs. I feel like the first step should be to move past the 2018 RfC. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sunnya343 - Just to revisit this discussion, we're now approaching ~12 AFDs this month, of which so far all that have been closed have been closed as delete or merge. I'm thinking that if we're re-running the 2018 RFC, the smartest thing to do is just re-run the exact same question that Beeblebrox posted because it's short and to the point, and the question really is whether the 2018 RFC still stands. Any explanation can be written in the first !vote to avoid it becoming part of the question and leading to TL;DR answers.

  I might run one more bundled AFD of any remaining cargo airlines just before posting the question though, just to drive home that these articles really do not survive AFD if there isn't an "it's useful" or "I like it" or "I've heard of this" component to it. FOARP (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's a good idea. Being concise is important. I would just say a few things:

  • I'm concerned about the word "should" in the question. When I used that word in the airport list RfC, it led to confusion; see Trovatore's comments. No one seemed to be confused by the wording of the 2018 RfC question, but perhaps we should modify the wording just to be safe?
  • We'd have to make clear which airline destination lists we're talking about, since in my last RfC attempt some people thought I was referring to the lists in airport articles. Others seemed to think the airport and airline lists were basically the same. Ideally we'd address both types, but I know you and others feel that that would be unwise.
  • I believe the RfC would have to be focused on the lists themselves as opposed to articles, otherwise people will rightly argue that RfCs are not a deletion venue. That was a big reason for the uproar after the 2018 RfC. True, most of the standalone lists are just composed of lists, but people shouldn't think that the RfC will directly result in the deletion of articles.

  Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking. I think I've just become anxious about the whole process after my prior RfC experiences. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you think of an RfC with the question you proposed at WT:AIRLINES ("Does List of Royal Jordanian destinations fail WP:NOT?")? We could choose a more emblematic list like List of British Airways destinations § List and link specifically to the list (not the whole article) so it's clear that this RfC isn't being used to delete articles. I like the clarity of this question. I feel like an RfC would be better than AfDs since in the latter it's mostly the same small number of people participating. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  IDK. To be honest I’m beginning to think resting the matter for a bit longer might be a good idea. The response to the last proposed RFC, which was withdrawn, makes me think people have just seen too much of this issue lately. In that context, it won’t matter what the question is: the response will be knee-jerk responses to questions not in the RFC. FOARP (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's sensible. Hopefully a future discussion will attract a larger number of editors with fresh eyes. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have received an email which was clearly intended for someone else. I can probably guess!

Good luck. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah apologies, a dumb mistake on my part! FOARP (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was this edit a mistake? It looks like you meant to put the AFD tag on List of IrAero destinations, not the airline article. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bundled AFD - the IrAero article is also nominated there (see last para of the nom). FOARP (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Those should probably be split into different AFDs as the reasoning for each of those is completely different and it will turn into a hot mess at AFD because people are going to be confused as to which article is being targeted by which comment. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There at least connected, in my view, by WP:NCORP failure. Open to un-bundling them if a train-wreck starts developing though. FOARP (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We may agree on more than you think. I don't really think these short "X is a moth. It is from Africa" stubs add much utility to the database, compared to their maintenance burden, and I was expecting that I would come charging into the mass creation RFC a few years ago on the side of locking things down. It's hard to express in policy terms, but I feel like you shouldn't be writing an article on "x" if you can't describe in coherent terms what "x" is, as opposed to naming a few random properties associated with it. What wound up altering my opinions was Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 194#Mass creation of pages on fish species, which made it clear that some editors were willing to try to use their interpretation of NOT, the GNG, etc. to force the deletion or upmerger of substantive, accurate, and useful articles.

I know what you've been through trying to deal with the geostubs and the community's lack of interest in getting straight-up untruths out of the encyclopedia. I'm not posting things with the hopes of changing your opinion; I'm gambling that protecting the efforts of the few editors who can create good articles about species from rules-lawyering will be more beneficial to the encyclopedia than cracking down on existing levels of species stub creation, but that's a very individual judgment and I wouldn't expect everyone to concur. (Incidentally, I spend a lot of free time helping update off-Wikipedia taxonomic databases for my taxonomic group of interest, so I'm fashioning a scourge for my own back if we get flooded with inaccurate stubs.) But I know you've been through a lot and, as with many of these discussions, you probably feel like you're shouting into the void; I am listening and even if I come to a different judgment, I do appreciate you bringing to the table your experience with mass-creation and SNGs. I hope that lessens the frustration a bit. Choess (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you now also nominating airlines list of destinations articles to be deleted?These articles are very important and they need to stay,it was already a big mistake that before we already had some deleted, including List of destinations of Lufthansa, United Airlines and American Airlines, we can't afford to lose more.. Metrosfan (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metrofan. I am nominating them for deletion because I do not think they are suitable content for an encyclopaedia. We defined what wasn’t suitable content for an encyclopaedia in WP:NOT, and these lists are, in my view, an example of a catalogue/database. Other editors tend to agree on that, which is why the nominations are being approved with the articles being deleted/redirected/merged.

My honest opinion is that the best solution is to move these lists off of Wikipedia. Something similar was done with plot-summaries. FOARP (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

theres no other websites that shows these information, the website of airlines do not show terminated destinations,we should have atleast put those information into the airline itself's article before deleting the list of airlines destinations articles, some of these articles were only deleted because it was slightly not really fair, it happened right during midnight and there was no notice about the deletion review made, which makes not many people aware about it. Metrosfan (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that there is a community of fans of this topic. However, it’s possible to set up a Wiki of your own to cover it. Information deleted from Wikipedia is never lost - you can ask an admin for copies of the deleted pages, and use them to set up an airline destination wiki. FOARP (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to close this lengthy move request. I wanted to point out that consensus is not reached in a numerical way but rather on the merits of the arguments presented. Can you please elaborate on this aspect? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting in touch. For a consensus to be reflected in strength of argumentation alone, I would expect to see at least a strong, unrebutted argument on one side. That does not appear present where, as I said in the close, the argumentation appears to centre around questions of accuracy/conciseness which appear reasonably argued on both sides. Certainly neither side appeared to score the kind of knock-out blow that I would expect to see for the discussion to be closed in favour of one side or the other where votes are essentially even.

It is of course true that consensus cannot be assessed by numbers alone, but it is also incorrect to say that numbers have no bearing at all: realistically, of course they do. For example, generally speaking, for a ten-to-one discussion to be decided in favour of the position held by the one, the argument would have to be overwhelming on the side of the one and practically non-existent on the side of the ten.

All that said, this close is without prejudice to any subsequent discussion, and there is an RFC open seeking to address the same topic that another closer might find a consensus in. FOARP (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The move is to expand the title to both Arab and Palestinian citizens of Israel as the latter term is used widely in RS. So can you elaborate further on how this was not a good enough argument for the move? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That argument didn't achieve a consensus, particularly due to accuracy/conciseness concerns. I'm sorry that this close was not what you wanted, but I can only close a discussion (barring some over-riding PAGs issue, which isn't present here) based on what's said in the discussion. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This move closure. Not sure if you also looked at closure requests but I did say that the bold move at feb 2024 should also be reverted for (un)stability reasons. There were no objections to moving it back to its pre-Feb 2024 name and that's now my intention but cannot do so because of the fact that the history of the redirect page prevented a move over redirect. JuniperChill (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were at least two !votes against the proposed move on stability grounds. To close as moved to a particular target not supported by any other !voter, when there were at least two "ain't broke, don't fix it" !votes, would not have been appropriate. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should run. If you want to run at normal RfA, I could nominate you there, but I'm going to be quite tired for a while and AELECT needs qualified candidates, so I would definitely encourage you to give this a shot :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, I've put something up, hopefully it's visible? FOARP (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

After a talk page discussion, we decided to be safe, and so unlisted all candidates for Admin Elections this month unless they added themselves explicitly. So please re-add yourself to the list at Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Call_for_candidates if you're ready to submit. I believe the Call for Candidates process ends October 14, 2024 at 23:59 UTC.

I just wanted to also leave a talk page message to be sure you didn't miss User:Novem Linguae's notif earlier. Good luck on your elections! Soni (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | November 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with #NOV24, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. As we're preparing to move from one stage to the next, this is just a quick note from one member of the test group to another, wishing you well in the process of this new alternative to RfA. It seems that there are more of us in this group than some in the community anticipated, so i hope that doesn't make the experience any the worse for all of us. Whatever our individual results, i thank you, along with the rest, for stepping up and testing this process; happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good wishes my fellow test-subject! I never thought I’d be a lab-rat but here we are! FOARP (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your wish to be higher up on the list: be careful what you wish for! (From someone high up on the list). A better experience than I expected, but still... — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, page views are not necessarily related to position on page. We should look at this after election completed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t (mostly) about position on the page - the point is more that (like Beeblebrox said over on WPO) it very much looks like there isn’t that much attention on/engagement with any individual candidate. FOARP (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FOARP,

Could you please re-evaluate this close? More editors endorsed "airstrike" than "attack", the consistency argument applies to both options, and VR didn’t address the COMMONNAME argument presented in the nom. BilledMammal (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch BM,

" More editors endorsed "airstrike" than "attack"" - I honestly don't see how you reach this conclusion. I've give you my vote-by-vote breakdown strictly for "airstrike" versus "attack" (obviously there were other things going on there):

• Support "airstrike" (Nom)
• Support "airstrike"
• Oppose "airstrike", support "attack"
• Support both "airstrike" and "attack"
• Oppose "airstrike", support "attack"
• Support "airstrike"
• Support both "airstrike" and "attack"

I make that a net-vote (counting opposes as negative votes, and indifferent votes as in favour of both) of +3 for "airstrike" and +4 for "attack". Obviously WP:NOTAVOTE but it was clear that some people had a problem with "airstrike" and others were indifferent between the two, and their concerns were reasonable. As such, it was necessary to find the title, grounded in the PAGS, that appeared acceptable to most people.

On the consistency point, VR raised good points about the number of different articles, with relatively few pointing the other way. It was hard to give a lot of weight to the COMMONNAME point raised in the nom, since it was simply asserted w/o any evidence being cited and didn't form part of the discussion. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that way of counting !votes is useful; it means you are counting the !votes of some editors twice. I think a better to only look at what editors support:

• Three support "airstrike"
• Two support "attack"
• Two support both

On consistency, a lot point the other way. For example:

• Al-Fakhoora school airstrikes
• al-Shati refugee camp airstrikes
• 12 February 2024 Rafah strikes
• June 2024 northern Gaza City airstrikes
• Khadija School airstrike
• Marlin Luanda missile strike

Finally, regarding the WP:COMMONNAME, the evidence was in the article. Given that no one disputed it - implicitly accepting it as true - it didn't seem necessary to provide the evidence more directly?

BilledMammal (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think inevitably if we're counting the either-way votes as in favour of both, we have to count the for-this-against-that as a positive for one and a negative for the other. Also, when trying to find something acceptable, negative opinions need to be taken in to consideration.

Regarding the rest, I can only take in to account what was raised in the discussion when assessing consensus. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The COMMONNAME was raised in the discussion, along with the evidence for it. Given that no one disputed the evidence, I don’t think you can give it less weight.

As for consistency, while less evidence against VR’s claims were provided in the RM, enough was provided to mean their argument shouldn’t have had sufficient weight to carry the discussion, particularly given more editors supported "airstrike" than "attack”

If you aren’t willing to change the result, would you at least be willing to relist, with a comment that further discussion should focus on the question of "airstrike" vs "attack"? BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only discussion of COMMONNAME I see in the discussion was that "massacre" wasn't the common-name, which I think was a common point between all contributors. No evidence for "Airstrike" was discussed, though evidence against "airstrike" was raised. I've given my reason for not relisting in the close - low participation in the days leading up to the discussion elapsing. FOARP (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my nomination, I also said:

Looking through the sources in the article, "strike" or "airstrike" is the most commonly used descriptor, making it the most appropriate title.

Given that the discussion has never been relisted, I see no harm in doing so once? Particularly since we’ve established here that the reason you found for "attack" - consistency - does not in fact support that title? BilledMammal (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it's asserted like this I would expect other contributors to pick the point up in order to weight it heavily, but that didn't happen. I think especially looking at the growth of the backlog at WP:RM it is important to give a final decision where possible, and in this case it was. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors did pick it up, with !votes like "per nom"

I would prefer not to take this to MV - it would consume far more editor time than a simple relist - but given the consistency argument is far weaker than VR made out, and given that the COMMONNAME is airstrike, I feel I need to if we don’t relist and allow further discussion on this question, as this isn’t the correct result, and will be used to support more inaccurate consistency arguments. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at their comments I saw the "per nom" primarily were talking about the inappropriate nature of "massacre" as a title. Importantly, no-one objected to "attack", and even one of the people I'm counting in the "support" column for "airstrike" described it as an "attack". The number of results in favour of "attack" rather than "airstrike" based on over-preciseness is large enough, judging by what is cited in the discussion, that this result won't change things very much. FOARP (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you relist, I’ll be able to explicitly present the COMMONNAME evidence (although given the argument was uncontested and some evidence was referenced, I see that as unnecessary), as well as the evidence you’ve seen here that contradicts the consistency argument that you based your close on.

In these circumstances, where a discussion has never been relisted, if I ask MV for one it’s almost certain to be granted - can we please save the community the time that would take? BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2024

Sorry BM, and maybe this isn't your intent, but this really comes off as an attempt to strong-arm a non-admin closer with the threat of MRV because you didn't get the precise close you were looking for. As a word of advice, reviewers at MRV also tend not to look on that very kindly.

I agree that saving the community's time is important. Making sure we save the community's time also means closing discussions with a result where it was possible to do so - and with the discussion standing where it was, it was possible to do so. This is particularly the case when backlogs are as they are.

(EDIT: an additional factor I should make explicit here is when there is a strong consensus in a sensitive area that the present title is not acceptable, we should try to change that title ASAP if a consensus can be seen in favour of another. It flows from this that we should also be loath to vacate that decision and move back to a title which we already have a consensus against)

I'll re-open the discussion if you can show here a good prima-facie case that common-name falls on the side of "airstrike" rather than "attack", meaning there's a strong likelihood that re-opening would result in a different outcome rather than just a 7-day delay whilst someone else reaches a similar conclusion with no further !votes. I'd be looking specifically for statistical evidence here (e.g., GNews hits or similar if possible). FOARP (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to get plain g-hits, as there are a lot of false positives, so I've done a manual review of news articles including "Al-Aqsa Hospital" and either "attack" or "airstrike" from the 14th and 15th of October:

Generally prefers "Attack" or similar:

1. Al Jazeera
2. Middle East Eye
3. France24
4. Al Jazeera
5. Washington Post
6. Al Jazeera
7. PBS
8. Al Jazeera
9. Middle East Eye
10. Muslim Council of Britain
11. Novara Media
12. Al Jazeera
13. People's Dispatch
14. Al Jazeera
15. Common Dreams
16. Anadola Agency
17. The Siasat Daily
18. The Siasat Daily

Generally prefers "Airstrike" or similar:

1. DW
2. The Washington Post
3. The Guardian
4. NBC
5. SBS
6. CBS
7. Euronews
8. ABC
9. New York Times
10. Times of Israel
11. Al Jazeera
12. NBC
13. Times of Israel
14. Global Times
15. BBC
16. The Guardian
17. BBC
18. Times of Israel
19. Sky News
20. Euro News
21. The Independent
22. CNN
23. Middle East Monitor
24. The New Arab
25. BBC
26. Washington Post
27. Tehran Times
28. CBC
29. Palestine Chronicle
30. Washington Post
31. Global News
32. iNews
33. CBC
34. Euronews
35. Jagran

I haven't attempted to remove unreliable sources (such as Muslim Council of Britain or Anadola Agency), but those are more likely to use "attack", and so by not excluding them I weaken my case, not strengthen it.

Sorry BM, and maybe this isn't your intent, but this really comes off as an attempt to strong-arm a non-admin closer with the threat of MRV because you didn't get the precise close you were looking for. As a word of advice, reviewers at MRV also tend not to look on that very kindly.

It's not my intent, and I would present the same arguments to an admin. In addition, as someone who used to be an extremely prolific RM closer prior to my recent pending retirement from Wikipedia, I would have granted the relist as soon as it was requested given these circumstances - which is part of the reason I'm so off-put by your reluctance to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BM. Limiting to hits on or since 14 October, GNews search gives me 57 results for "Al Aqsa Hospital" + "Attack" and 41 for "Al Aqsa Hospital" + "Airstrike". I'm not sure there is a prima-facie case to reopen here but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Do you still want me to re-open the discussion, pinging all the original participants, with a link to your results and mine? This will result in the close being reverted back to the original title. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with your search is that it incorrectly classifies many articles. For example, the first result from your link only uses "attack" in reference to other events, not this airstrike. Other articles may use "attack" once to refer to this air strike, but otherwise use "airstrike" or similar - in such circumstances, we should consider that a source supporting "airstrike", not both.

An additional issue is that it misses related words, such as "air strike" or even "strike". This issue exists with my search too, but is less consequential as it doesn't change the overall result.

As such, yes - please relist, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done FOARP (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you reopen an RM which hadn't previously been relisted, please add {{subst:RM relist}} after the original requester's signature, to avoid confusing the bot, as I did HERE, which removed it from the "malformed requests" section. The bot takes the first signature it finds in the RM section as the closing signature of the request, unless that's been superseded by an edit signed by using {{subst:RM relist}}. And, essentially when you reverted your close, you relisted it. Sorting the signatures in requested moves involves using complex regular expressions and trying to make the regex even more complicated to accommodate the way you reopened it will make my brain hurt. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies wbm1058, I was sure there was something I had to do but I had forgotten about the relist template.

@BilledMammal - I think the subsequent discussion has confirmed that the previous move was the right one, no need to continue to play this out. FOARP (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it was never properly relisted, which means uninvolved editors would not have been brought to the discussion, I disagree - can we relist it, properly this time? BilledMammal (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BM, my messed-up relisting (for which please accept my apologies) was fixed by another editor as far as I can see. That’s why we had a number of previously-uninvolved editors entered the discussion.

I’m extremely loath to relist, again, a discussion where the consensus is already clearly against “airstrike” and in favour of “attack” on WP:OVERPRECISE grounds. Not just that, a number of those commenting criticised relisting the discussion and/or expressed frustration at the delay in moving from the “massacre” title.

What more are you looking for from a further discussion on this? FOARP (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was fixed on 1 November 2024; prior to that, it was in "malformed requests", and didn't present any argument for the move, instead just your struck close.

What I'm looking for is editors generally uninvolved in the topic area to participate - and I would also prefer a different editor close the discussion, as you've now expressed a personal opinion on the strength of the evidence, suggesting you disagree with it - I note that editors in the discussion have retracted claims of g-hits countering the evidence of WP:COMMONNAME I presented. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry BM, I really don't see any grounds on which to re-open this. You had your re-list, it's clear that people saw it because there were numerous new participants starting less than an hour after the re-list so my messed-up re-listing doesn't appear to have impacted participation significantly. I count eight new participants, which is more than participated in the previous two weeks. Of these eight new participants, nableezy, Andreas, Raskolnikov, Genabab, M.Bitton, Ïvana (6) opposed "airstrike" and endorsed "attack", Red Slash and Whizkin (2) supported both. Meanwhile PARAKANYAA (1), a previous !voter, switched their previous !vote to endorsing "airstrike".

The grounds expressed for supporting were WP:OVERPRECISE and the descriptive nature of the title meaning that in any case, regardless of what the evidence said either way (and again, it doesn't seem to have been picked up by any other editor - PARAKANYAA made their !vote based on WP:PRECISE), WP:COMMONAME was not to be taken as decisive.

You presented your evidence, it didn't receive consensus. The only view I have expressed on your evidence was that it was debatable (clearly the case, since it was debated). Any other editor could make the exact close I made. You're free to MRV this if you wish, but I really don't see the result being much different. Re-listing this again would result in the article being returned to a title that the community opposes due to neutrality issues and we ought to take that seriously.

Finally, a little beg: the issue you're spending a lot of people's time on here is simply the difference between "airstrike" and "attack", two words with overlapping meaning. You talked a lot above about saving the community's time, so please think about that.

My suggestion would be to just let the dust settle on this one for a while and then see if it's worth looking at the "airstrike"/"attack" issue generally across all of the articles it impacts rather than try to fight it out article-by-article. FOARP (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you help me add the merge proposal template on the articles of List of Air India Express destinations and Air India Express, I have proposed a merge where the destinations list article is to be merged into the airline article, thanks, you may also feel free to discuss the proposal at either Talk:List of Air India Express destinations or Talk:Air India Express Metrosfan (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like something you can just straight merge BOLDly, no need for a full discussion. Anyone who disagrees can just WP:BRD. FOARP (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FOARP. Would you please consider changing this move request to no consensus and move the article back to Armenian resistance during the Armenian genocide? There are many issues with the move result. There was no consensus for any name change, and there was nothing wrong with the original title in the first place. The move request itself appears to have been made in bad faith, because generally only genocide denial sources refer to Armenian resistance as "rebellion" (some examples) and the OP was POV pushing Turkish revisionism by claiming the Turks were the real victims (same user wants to remove genocide from the lede of Turkey and has been called out for bad faith [1]). In addition to removing mention of the genocide being appeasing to genocide deniers, the new title is not a good description. The article is not about Armenian resistance in Verdun or Tsingtao, so referring to World War I as a whole is not an accurate description. The other major issue is that many sources agree the genocide began before World War I (see Late Ottoman genocides). According to Taner Akçam: The date 24 April 1915 is generally seen as the symbolic beginning of the Armenian genocide, as it marks the date on which some 200 Armenian political, religious and intellectual leaders in Istanbul were arrested. In fact, massacres of Armenians had already begun in the southeastern and eastern provinces of Anatolia and the Caucasus as early as August–September 1914, months before the Ottoman entry into World War One.[2] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KhndzorUtogh, thanks for getting in touch.

I don’t think an overturn to no consensus would be appropriate in a situation where everyone in the discussion appeared to be against the existing title. However, since you didn’t !vote in this discussion, and since the outcome of the discussion might have been different if you had !voted, I’ll re-open the discussion so you can make this !vote.

I’m travelling right now so it might take a bit of time for me to do this. FOARP (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vote once it's reopened. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done FOARP (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>and the OP was POV pushing Turkish revisionism by claiming the Turks were the real victims (same user wants to remove genocide from the lede of Turkey and has been called out for bad faith [1]).

Sorry, no? That wasn't my goal. My other RfC was because the Turkey lede was long and it is more about the Ottomans rather than the Turks. This one? Well, during the loss of life, it could be described as resistance but before and it was just rebellions and teaming up with russians. Youprayteas ^{talk/contribs} 12:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FOARP,

Please fix this redirect. And any time you move a well-developed article, just assume it has redirects and when you move the article to a different page title, please leave a redirect for both the article and the talk page. Otherwise we have a lot of unnecessary broken redirects that will likely get deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thanks for the message, I think it's done? FOARP (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your election as a new admin! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The results are up? Where?

I imagine congratulations to yourself also! Found them! Commiserations! From the looks of things, there were about 100 editors who were voting "no" to everyone, without expressing any reason for doing so, so I wouldn't take it too hard! FOARP (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone who voted for me in the admin elections! I will try my best to fulfill the trust you have placed in me!

To those who didn't vote for me, I will try to win that trust! It would also be great to know why: I'm a big lad so don't think you have to hold back. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't usually do this but the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kotter is exactly the kind of thing that I was worried about. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expand? FOARP (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not now, going to try to get some sleep. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be able to offer you the baton, but I hope you can savour these bâtonnets as you study all the new admin buttons! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! And thanks for your work on this! FOARP (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super proud of you!! Welcome to the admin corps :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Leeky. I can definitely say I couldn’t have done this without your support! FOARP (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw you passed, congrats!!! JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JJ! FOARP (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your comment here, would you be willing to remove or strike Roads are a really bad area for block-voting in a way contrary to PAGs like this. It is tangential to the point and is likely to raise the temperature. It's nothing I'm going to remove, but I figured I'd ask. Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on the topic, congratulations! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK SFR, removed. FOARP (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, had my double espresso now... in the close you wrote:

The result was Deleted - Since it was generally agreed that WP:GNG appears to be failed, the main point of contention here is whether WP:NPROF 1a is met or not. The main evidence cited for keeping the article is the h-count and citation numbers of papers authored by the subject. However, the appropriate cut-off point for whether the numerical figures given here were sufficient was disputed, as well as the relevance of these metrics. Even in the words of a keep !voter, the h-count metric was only "just about" met, while others stated that it was below their cut-off. Numerically, the number of !voters clearly split in favour of deletion, the arguments were closer but still leaned towards deletion since the only grounds for keeping were disputed and not endorsed by following editors. COI concerns were also raised. With only two new !votes in the past week, there was no grounds to further re-list this. No objection to re-creating this article with more sourcing or redirecting.

I agree the "main point of contention here is whether WP:NPROF 1a is met or not". Two indept voters (me & Ldm1954) who are familiar with academic AfDs both ended up on the side of believing it was met, though not strongly. The nominator (CNMall41) disagreed, but their discussion with Ldm1954 revealed they had a misunderstanding of the way PROF 1a works. In their discussion with me, they wrote "I think we are close. I don't believe this would meet GNG so the only thing I think we differ on at the moment is if his citations would meet the threshold of #C1. I wouldn't be opposed to requesting other editors with experience in that space to chime in." After that there was some irrelevant discussion amongst the three of us, followed by a drive-by GNG-based vote which is of no merit if PROF is met, as Ldm1954 pointed out and CNMall41 didn't contest.

The AfD seems to me a clear case of needs more data, ie either (1) leave open another week with a note requesting opinion specifically on the PROF 1a question, possibly in association with actively seeking further input (though that's fraught); or (2) close as no consensus.

With regard to your close rationale, (1) I'm not seeing "while others stated that [the h-index] was below their cut-off." I don't think anyone actually wrote that?; (2) numerical vote counting in PROF cases is particularly pointless.

On a more general front, the close felt to me (whether it was or not) like a supervote from someone whom I perceive (rightly or wrongly) as opposed to the very idea of SNGs that override the GNG.

I'm actually not that bothered in this specific case; if Kotter is genuinely notable then sooner or later PROF passing will become more obvious, and/or GNG will be met. If you don't feel minded to withdraw your close in favour of relisting to attempt to find a genuine consensus, then I might or might not bother taking it to deletion review. Tbh I have better things to do.

However I am genuinely concerned that your AfD closes of any topic in which current policy is that an SNG overrides GNG will be at best contentious and at worst plain wrong. I believe it borders on being WP:Involved ("This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." [emphasis mine]), because (1) you (I believe) have a longstanding dispute with the existing policy; and also (2) I'd say you have had significant conflicts with me. Fwiw, (1) I gave up closing AfDs altogether long ago because it became clear to me that I was not capable of being sufficiently objective; and (2) I would not consider myself uninvolved in this sense with you.

I also fear that making what feels to me a biased, ideology-driven close some hours after being elected to adminship with (I think you would admit) minimal discussion and 106 opposes makes me question your judgement. I don't generally discuss the conduct of other admins, so this is a departure for me. Hopefully it can be a learning experience for both of us. Now off to make another espresso and see how many speedies have accumulated while I've been typing. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the opinion of @Espresso Addict about the explanation of the deletion decision, which I don't believe fully represents the discussion. (I cannot say anything about prior history.) I went back over the discussion, and here is my summary:

1. Votes for delete per GNG=2 ; Votes for delete per GNG and NPROF=3 ; Votes for keep per NPROF=2.
2. Many of the statements in the delete votes about no significant coverage are not relevant to WP:NPROF.
3. The COI issue may be real, but I do not believe this should ever be grounds for a decision that a BLP is not notable.
4. Editors who provide concrete arguments about WP:NPROF#C1 are Ldm1954 and Espresso Addict. The argument was based upon both (quoting) several extremely highly cited scholarly publications and a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates, both part of C1a. Please note that he passes both, it is not easy to get > 1K citations.
5. As I stated in my comments, my bar for academic notability is high, and in fact many others have a significantly lower bar. For many his citations would pass #C1 with flying colors.
6. Only one editor (@CNMall41 questioned the notability based upon #C1, the other votes did not include extensive analysis.
7. He compares well judging against his peers, which is an established way to check citation relevance.

To me the votes to delete per GNG should be discarded, which then leaves 3:2 with only one of the deletes (the nominator) making significant comments; this could also be interpreted as 1:2 for delete versus keep. To me this is no concensus, and I strongly support either leaving this open or changing the decision to no concensus.

N.B., I do not believe I have any prior background with you or @CNMall41, although I think I have seen @Espresso Addict at some academic STEM AfD's. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems to me a clear case of needs more data, ie either (1) leave open another week with a note requesting opinion specifically on the PROF 1a question, possibly in association with actively seeking further input (though that's fraught); or (2) close as no consensus." - I was not requesting more data. I was open to the opinion of others who have not opined in the discussion already. I still do not believe the page meets NPROF.

"they had a misunderstanding of the way PROF 1a works" - I have an understanding of how NPROF works. I can always be corrected if my understanding is wrong but nothing in that discussion leads me to believe that my understanding of the guideline is wrong. What was in question is whether that person's particular citations would get them over the threshold. Again, I do not believe they do. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, CNMall41. By needs more data, I meant the AfD needed input from fresh eyes. I have slightly edited my original note to make this clearer. There appear to be only three opinions on the WP:PROF1a question, plus a largely uncontested agreement that GNG is not met. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I apologize as I wrongly assumed that you believed I needed more data. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“On a more general front, the close felt to me (whether it was or not) like a supervote from someone whom I perceive (rightly or wrongly) as opposed to the very idea of SNGs that override the GNG.”

- this is a flat-out wrong impression and if I were you I’d strike it. I am fully aware that NPROF is independent of GNG and said as much in my close.

"I also fear that making what feels to me a biased, ideology-driven close some hours after being elected to adminship with (I think you would admit) minimal discussion and 106 opposes makes me question your judgement. I don't generally discuss the conduct of other admins, so this is a departure for me."

- I hope you will reflect on the tone of this comment which seems to jump straight to assuming bad faith and is also essentially casting doubt on everyone who passed through the AELECT process.

I’ll certainly think about the other comments raised after I’ve had a chance to have a cup of coffee and read the news… FOARP (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I've had a bit of coffee, and to be honest I do not remember every interacting with you at all Espresso Addict. I recognise your handle, but I don't recall any discussion between us at any point. Perhaps a search might turn one up, but I don't believe there is any history of conflict, far less anything that might make us WP:INVOLVED. There doesn't seem to be much assumption of good faith in anything you've written here. Again, I hope you'll reflect on that.

Since three editors from the discussion including the nominator are all here and seem open to a relist, I don't think I can deny that, so I'll vacate and re-list for another week. FOARP (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FOARP -- Thanks for reopening the discussion; I think it's the best solution to attempting to judge the notability of Kotter, and indeed I see another comment has been added already.

I'm sorry that I failed to assume good faith in my earlier comment. I was, I admit, extremely annoyed at the close, which I saw just as I was going to bed: never a good time to edit. We have actually overlapped in several places, both in AfD and Wikipedia-space discussions, and most recently in the ongoing RfA. I did later realise that perhaps I had vividly remembered you, but you had not noticed me; and I also wondered if I'd tended to see you in discussions with a particular group of editors, but had made an unwarranted assumption about your views by association.

I'm also sorry that I brought my genuine concerns about the new admin elections into this discussion, with someone who has been brave enough to run with the new process, and well supported enough to succeed. Usually, as I wrote above, I try not to comment on other admin's actions, and perhaps I just don't have the interpersonal skills to do that properly. Food for thought. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add that I am not really open to a relist, but I don't object to it. Probably the best call absent DRV. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just saw you were having a bit of trouble relisting the discussion there, and thought I'd mention turning on Wikipedia:XFDcloser in your setting might make it a little bit easier in the future. I don't think anyone actually knows how to relist things manually these days lol everyone finds it too much easier to just click the button and off it goes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I knew there must be some bot/script/etc. for doing all this, didn't know which - thanks for the tip! Did it manually but the only page I wasn't brave enough to try to edit manually was the list of re-listed discussions. FOARP (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep playing with the shinny new buttons. Wikibear47 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikibear! I have to admit I was rather overwhelmed when I saw all the "shinny new buttons" that come with the tool-set, and I don't dream of pushing even half of them for quite some time to come! FOARP (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The axe of responsibility
	Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's champion. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Buster! And a good reminder! FOARP (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FOARP, I think I've seen you here and there for several years now and always had a good impression of you. I'm glad to see that several hundred people agree! I'm not sure what gave me that positive feeling – it seems we've only directly interacted once, but I'll never forget your unique username. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 17:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Toadspike! I do try, I don't always succeed, but I do try. FOARP (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats! Andre🚐 22:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers @Andrevan! FOARP (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The new admin baton
	Congratulations on winning the admin election! Sohom passed the fabled baton to me and, and having given it a twirl or two, I am passing it on to you! Once you are done appreciating its magnificence, do pass it to the next admin. Happy mopping!

Yours, Peaceray (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A belated congrats, FOARP! The userrights log linked in the baton box doesn't show the next admin since you're the last of the elected; Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Voorts recently closed successfully, though. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]