Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines

Mediation Case: 2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Vegaswikian 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Mainly in Singapore Airlines right now. There are reverts of well intentioned attempts to improve this article.


 * Who's involved?
 * Huaiwei
 * Vegaswikian
 * Skyskraper
 * Terence Ong
 * Golich17
 * SingaporeGirl
 * Vsion
 * Dbinder
 * wangi
 * Zack2007
 * Shakujo


 * What's going on?
 * Edits to try and reduce duplicate material, non encyclopedic material, conflicting material and badly formated and worded text are being reverted by the main previous editors of the article. In at least one case, there is a main article for the heading that is actually smaller then the text in the Singapore Airlines article.  The Singapore Airlines article includes information about an airline and a company and a group.  That confuses and makes the article larger then it needs to be.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like to see someone explain to both sides why their actions are or are not helping to improve this series of articles. For some editors, much of the material is clearly not encyclopedic and this fact needs to be conveyed to the other parties, assuming that this position is in fact correct.  I would like to see efforts redirected to improving the articles rather then into reverting well intentioned attempts to improve the articles.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * No

Mediator response

 * I would be glad to take this case. I'll contact all parties involved.  . V .  [Talk 23:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this dispute still active or can I close the case? --Ideogram 03:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No activity for ten days. Closing. --Ideogram 13:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


 * 1) Edit "flight numbers" section so that it is in line with the original editor's intention of describing market share, i.e. where Singapore Airlines flies to. Hence, deleting unused flight numbers, code-shares, and charter flight numbers.
 * 2) Adjust the article to the standard template.

Discussion

 * The basic thing is, I am trying to integrate articles to look the same and have a similar feel. Certain articles, such as Northwest Airlines and Continental Airlines are easy to read and have a simple layout, which is also easy to edit.  Huiwei is "holding me back" from laying-out the Singapore Airlines article correctly as to WP:Airlines.  I just really do hope we can reach an agreement to make this article look like the others.--Golich17 23:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * After some time off to cool down, I have come across this Mediation page. I have a problem with one editor acting as is they are the ultimate authority on the entry. Especially when multiple editors have made many attempts to improve the standard of the entry when it currently reads like an advertorial that is far from npov (and at some points triviality) to the point that it is not worth attempting to contribute because it is a waste of ones time. I feel that this current disagreement and the entry in general could use some external input in order to help it become a useful and more encyclopedic entry rather than (IMO) something that reads like it was written by a marketing department bordering on fancruft. As it stands I don't think that can happen. skyskraper 14:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I understand the dispute is that Golich17 wishes to change the layout of the article, with the intent of making it comply with Wikipedia guidelines on article structure. Skyskraper, and others, believe that Golich's attempts are too editorial and are not neutral. It would be helpful if the parties involved provide specific examples of the changes that are under dispute.  . V .  [Talk 23:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to discuss small changes to the article and how the inclusion of certain details was necessary. The reasons I was given did not fully cover or did not adequately cover inclusion of those details. I asked the original editor, Huaiwei, to edit the article himself because my previous attempts had been reverted by himself or another user, Vsion. Those edits were not forthcoming. Given the insignificance of the changes I was suggesting, as agreed by one of the editors concerned, the impression I got was that the arguments against my proposals could be summed up as follows: every airline page was just as bad, so go edit some other page or discuss it on the airlines project page. I got the impression that there was resentment to the very suggestion that minor points needed to be changed. Further proposals were then ignored. If I didn't know better I would say this article unfortunately s eems to be treated as a personal fiefdom by some, especially given arguments that were very close to suggesting that a personal lack of knowledge on my part was the reason why my proposals were unacceptable. I think the editors concerned should be asked to make any agreed edits that arise out of this mediation.--Shakujo 01:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to provide information about the specific edits made by Shakujo. He/she added the following templates to the article:
 * However, the size of the article is within acceptable range in wikipedia, many featured articles exceed this size
 * There is only one Singapore Airlines in the globe, I don't see why the "globalize" tag is needed.
 * Shakujo does not has privilege to protect the article. Even if he has, it is not warranted at the time and the tag would prevent others from editing. Note that inserting this tag is a common form of vandalism and often reverted on sight by RC patrols.
 * Therefore, I removed these tags and explained the reasons in the talk page. I believe other editors would have done the same. I sincerely ask Shakujo not to misinterpret my intention. --Vsion 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

--Shakujo 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Specifically, the discussion I am referring to is here and here.
 * I do not misunderstand the reason for changing the tags and I admit that my use of the was incorrect. This, however, is getting away from the fact that these edits were not treated with good faith, but as "a common form of vandalism" to be "reverted on sight". We can get into a discussion about how a global entity such as an airline should be tagged  but we are again being diverted away from the point. Given the fuelled debate that had happened previously it would have been better to demand of me why I had used the tags rather than revert on sight. Wouldn't this be more in line with Wikipedia principles?
 * There has still been no adequate answer to my previous points both here and on the article discussion page with regard to edits, and we seem to be aiming to play up a minor issue to divert attention from the fact that to make the article better the page needs to: (1) fit the standard airline article model and (2) describe the airline better by cutting away extraneous material.
 * As I said on the discussion page I would rather this was done with concensus, and if there is a compelling reason why the points I made are not valid then I can accept that. I already gave ground by picking specific parts of a section to be trimmed down rather than my initial response of deleting the whole section. Isn't it time others gave a little too? As I have said compromise is something done by two people.
 * This lack of compromise is reflected in reluctance to follow the airline standard layout. In my opinion, unless there is a compelling reason why Singapore Airlines is a special case I do not see why it should be afforded the special treatment it is receiving from some editors.
 * I would like to note that I initially placed a maintenance tag on the site that was removed. Whether or not my application of that tag was correct, the explanation for its removal was decidedly lacking. The implication of its removal, however, was that the editor concerned did not wish others to edit the article and/or was personally offended at the suggestion that it needed maintenance. Maybe I have misunderstood, but there seems to be no reluctance when it comes to contribution and expansion, but a grave reluctance to delete or edit for clarity, brevity and impartiality. As I understand it we are editors not purely contributors.--Shakujo 06:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, this whole business is enough to dissuade a person from editing Wikipedia.--Shakujo 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In case you haven't notice, following the discussion, Huaiwei and I have reformated those sections using tables. This gives it a better layout and improves readability without deleting the content that is important to the understanding of SIA's operation. I believe this is a constructive solution without compromising the comprehensiveness of the article. While it was not exactly what you desire, I hope you would agree that it is an improvement. --Vsion 07:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It took rather a lot of discussion to get even that minor rearrangement. This is all taking rather a personal tone. What I wanted and what I suggested are different things; the table would only be 2 lines smaller if my first 2 suggestions had been taken up, it would be a lot shorter if I was personally responsible for it. So in fact, not really a particularly objectionable edit and by all degrees in line with Huaiwei's stated original reasons for inclusion. Going back to the personal point, I am a little concerned with how Huaiwei argues points, if you take User_talk:Vsion as an example, the argument seems to suggest that I would like to personally dumb down topics so that they are unintelligible. The whole argument has the appearance of a veiled insult.--Shakujo 07:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In every disagreement, there are always two sides of the coin to consider. While Shakujo harps about supposed "personal insults" and accuses some of "owning articles", he somehow seems not to realise his comments may be just as insulting, if not more. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I even informed him that I was indeed insulted, but instead of apologising, he preferred to question the rationale of me being emotionally upset. For him to then turn around and accuse me of making personal attacks smacks of sheer hypocrisy to me, but I arent exactly going to let them come to a head, and I would rather let it pass. I do not even understand what this Mediation Cabal is really aiming for. Just who is this "one editor" controlling the edit of this article? No one seems to be upfront about it.--Huaiwei 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there's quite a history behind this dispute. While I understand that there have been controversial actions taken in the past (as well as substantial discussion), let's talk about the future so we can find a productive solution.


 * The aim of this MedCab request is to figure out a solution that would be acceptable to everyone. It's clear that everyone involved wants a better article, although there's a dispute on the particulars of how that should happen. Oftentimes, disputes like these get personal and it seems like both sides have been offended. I think, though, that we can all agree we want the Singapore Airlines article to be the best it can be. Let's try to work from there.


 * To come up with a solution, let's go through the major proposals. From what I gather, there was a discussion about a table and what it should contain. It appears that at least a stable solution was reached in regards to that topic, so I'd like to talk about what seems to be the most overarching change. I noticed that Golich mentioned that he wants to have the article conform to Wikipedia policies on layout. This seems to be his impetus for change.


 * Let's try to take it one issue at a time. The best way to do this would be to get all the issues out in the air so we can discuss them. In what specific ways do the editors here think the article should be improved? (A bulletpoint list, preferably).  . V .  [Talk 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back to the basics. This, after all, is an encyclopedia. One of the points with any encyclopedia is the style of that encyclopedia. This is done so that all of the entries have a certain look and feel to them which allows a reader to be familiar with each entry in some way. This is a way to reduce the impact of having different editors writing every article. At some basic level, the article retains a somewhat common look and feel.

At the most simple points, this includes the basic layout of articles. This includes bolding of the article name as it appears in the beginning of the first sentence of the introduction. It includes linking dates, but not years and months. If there is another article that already covers the material, you know that you can click on a link and get to the more complete encyclopedia article on that topic.

However many of these style points are ignored in several of the articles under discussion here. Read Singapore Airlines and then read Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. There is a rather significant overlap. Clearly since this was a different airline, the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines should contain all of the appropiate information and there should be a link in the Singapore Airlines article with maybe a sentance or two at most. The same is true for Singapore Airlines. Most of this is covered in great detail in Singapore Girl listed as the main article for this section yet much of this material is repeated here with 2 screens of material. Again there should only be a sentence or two with the bulk of the information in the MAIN article. Then there is the Singapore Airlines section, also with a main article where the material from the main article is extensively repeated in the Singapore Airlines article. Repeating material is BAD. It requires duplicate work to update in multiple places and needs to be avoided.

Let's move on to Singapore Airlines. There is general consensus to not include minor incidents. With few exceptions, this means if there were no deaths or inguries, the event is not considered notable and should not be included. With aircraft accidents and incidents do happen on a daily basis. So an engine cowling falling off or an engine fire, or a hatch left unlocked, while an incident, is not notable and should not be included.

Codeshares are viewed by WP:AIRLINES as not a significant item for airlines. This is due to the simple fact that the airline using the code shares does not operate the flights so they are not a part of the airline. They are a marketing tool, plain and simple. They are encylopedic only in that they need to be mentioned, but destinations are not included in articles since they are already covered in the other airlines article. Also codeshares pose other challanges since there can be restrictions about boarding rights at a location that are not clearly identified in a source that provides only some of the detail. For example, just because airline A has a code share agrement with airline B for service between point C & D, or simpley to point D, it does not mean that new pasangers for airline A, or for what its worth airline B, can actually board at point C. The codeshare may only exist for transfer passengers. So listing these types of flights is problematic at best, clearly travel guide material and likely WP:NOT.

Listing Flight number ranges does not serve any encyclopedic purpose. This is stuff that airline buffs might be interested in but it is not encyclopedic. It servers little if any purpose for the average encyclopedia reader. This function could be served just as well by simply providing a reference link to the data on the airline site for the few who might need this information and don't know how to find it on the airlines site.

There are may additional issues, but these are ones that I how show some of the larger issues that various editors have with the article.

It almost seems to me that the purpose of this article is to see how long we can make it, to see how many articles I can create about the airline, to act of an extension of the airline marketing department and to ensure that the Singapore editors own the article. I know those are strong words, but they do effectively sum up the perception that many other editors have about these articles. Remember perceptions are true. They may not be what someone intended, but that does not mean they incorrect either.

In closing, the mediator needs to remember that the focus here is on the SA article. Some of these issues cross over into the other airline articles. So whatever compromise is reached, we all need to remember that it will apply to a larger number of articles.


 * Vegaswikian 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for providing that explanation as to the important issues on this article. Indeed, the agreement made here would extend to other articles, but it seems as if these issues are so general that they could apply to many (if not all) of the articles listed when this was filed.


 * To condense that into a list, here's what it seems like your position is to me:


 * The article should link to other sections if the other sections have similar/the same content
 * The accidents section should not include minor accidents
 * The flight numbers are unencylopedic


 * Now, I know that the issues are more nuanced than that, it's just for my own reference. Discussions like these often become complex and unwieldy, so having a list is a good idea to keep track of what's going on. So I'd like to know two things. The first is that I'd like to hear the "other side" of the coin; basically, the response to the summary Vegaswikian wrote. Secondly, if there are any other issues besides the ones raised directly above, please state them.  . V .  [Talk 06:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So by giving a reminder that this is non-binding then you are signalling your intention to ignore anything agreed here, or any consensus reached, so we are wasting our time and should go straight to an official arbitration? Is that understanding correct? Your comment on the specifc proposals would also be appreciated.--Shakujo 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Accepting your lists as a the basis for discussion, I want to ask about the timeframe of this mediation. Should we get no response from the editors concerned, when can we make the edits agreed here? If this mediation is simply ignored by said editors and agreed edits are reverted, what further actions can be taken?
 * I see no point in making edits to an article ring-fenced in this way: it is a waste of my time if I know agreed edits will be automatically "revert[ed]... on sight", possibly by two or more editors working together to avoid 3RRs. It is a little difficult to assume good faith when involvement by all parties is limited. I have tried to discuss and agree very minor edits in an attempt to persuade and build concensus, but this devolved into a discussion of the way in which edits are made, which was not my intention.
 * We have to apply some editing for brevity, it isn't possible for Wikipedia to be as "comprehensive" as everyone would like, unless editors seeking such comprehensiveness are willing to donate large amounts of money to supply a continuous flow of new server storage space.--Shakujo 02:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that you need to reread Mediation Cabal and Requests for mediation to better understand how it works, which would have answered many of your questions above. The Mediation Cabal is an informal step prior to the formal mediation process. The mediation process is a formal but voluntary process to assist individuals in developing a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute. Mediation does not provide binding resolution to disputes; mediators can not, do not, and will not issue rulings on disputes.
 * Please understand that the Mediation Cabal is suppposed to be an informal avenue for discussions, meant more for individuals to sit down and talk in an amicable manner, than as a place to force out a binding agreement. Unrealistic expectations here may result in no resolution or improvement to the current impasse at all.--Huaiwei 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the three items listed by .V., the first two seem to be new issues not disputed between the parties listed in this page. The third item is a case of disagreement, as some editors (myself included) oppose to removing it, because it illustrates the market coverage, divisions, and strategy of SIA. There have already been compromising effort: (1) I believe the list is a condensed form of an original larger list, (2) the list is converted to a table to improve readability as noted above. It is really a small table, and i'm not sure why the micro-managing by members of the wikiproject:airlines. The main problem with the wikiproject is the one-size-fit-all layout stipulated for airlines without consideration of the major difference in airlines in terms of services, managements, and markets. If the wikiproject (1) adopts greater flexibility in the layout, (2) makes it clear to members that it is only a guideline, (3) emphasizes on inclusive guidelines (what to include) rather than exclusive guideline (what not to include), I believe these disputes could have been avoided. These are general norms in other wikiprojects. --Vsion 05:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that you consider the table to cover market share, but you haven't said why you think that, or replied to the points made by Vegaswikian about why they do not cover market share. I standby the point that codeshare flights are not operated by Singapore Airlines and that they are not considered to represent exclusive market share by financial industry analysis of airlines.
 * This is not the place to complain about the wikipedia airlines project. If you object to these type of edits why not complain about all airline articles that follow those guidelines, why concentrate on Singapore Airlines? I suspect that simple possessiveness is getting in the way. If not, then I am sure you would be happy to agree to the edits discussed here and then take the issue up on the airlines project page.--Shakujo 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My purpose is not to complain, but really to highlight the fundamental problem here and to suggest a long-term solution. Again, I don't understand why you "suspect" this or that, this type of comment is not constructive. What I suggest are general norms in other wikiprojects, experienced editors from WP:Airlines understand this (e.g. ), but clearly, others have some misconception about the role of wikiproject. The most historic and successful wikiproject is probably the WikiProject Countries, which states very clearly, that "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." This has served it well and has resulted in many featured articles. --Vsion 06:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I use the word "suspect" because it is a balanced word that reflects the fact that I do not "know" precisely your intentions. It is constructive because it highlights the fact that I cannot tell that there is any other logical reason why you won't accept these suggestions because you have not explained why.
 * Your suggestion is counter to the general norm of the airlines project, which has comparatively more editors involved, thus leading me to the conclusion that you feel that you do not wish to follow the general norm, that somehow this page is considered special. The intention is not to use it against you, nobody is suggesting blocking/banning anybody, the point is that these guidelines are the consensus of many users involved with the airlines project.
 * Given that your argument here is based on the assumption that "experienced editors" would not include myself it seems that, yet again, you are not answering the question why. Why do you think it is unreasonable to apply, here and now, the suggested edits in the specific case of Singapore Airlines? If there isn't a case, then why don't you take the argument to the project page where you can argue the general case for all airlines, and then come back to Singapore Airlines when consensus has been built, and if the edits we discuss today are not in line with that future policy you can edit appropriately at that future time? Why not follow the concensus that exists?
 * Regarding your example, where is the wikipedia policy that has guidelines for "toying" with people? This kind of comment doesn't really inspire confidence. Given your and Huaiwei's interest in articles relating to Singapore, I suspect that this article is not about Airlines in general. I hope I am wrong. --Shakujo 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I sense from comments by Shakujo that he/she probably needs to give himself a break before continuing discussions here. Peppered throughout his comments, are criticisms towards the "negative conduct" of a "mysterious group" of wikipedians, many of which are obviously unfounded and merely an opinion of his own. For example, statements like "two or more editors working together to avoid 3RRs", "you are signalling your intention to ignore anything agreed here", "complain about the wikipedia airlines project" suggests a general lack of good faith in this process, even if they were merely "suspected". Please be mindful that you are not the only one experiencing exasperation, and it does not earn you the right to make offensive statements such as these.


 * May I further add, that comments on the purpose of this mediation process, and on your conduct, may not be considered unconstructive as you suggest . Mediation is not just about getting people to agree on facts or presentation guidelines. It may also be about building goodwill and trust amongst the community to facilitate long-term collaborative work. You have every liberty to discuss on my contribution style, if that helps to reduce tensions and promote better understanding. In fact, I would consider this more important than the content discussion, because if the foundation of trust is not even in existance, than what else may be accomplished here?--Huaiwei 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Shakujo's comment really prove the point I was making about where the fundamental problem is: the misunderstanding of the role of wikiproject. As to his/her question "why", Huaiwei has explained it earlier. Without the table, the article present little information about how SIA divides its market. With the table, we see that Southwest Asia and Africa are grouped together; South Asia is a separate market, etc.. If the table is removed, such insight is lost. I should note that market accessibility is an extremely important aspect of the operation of a few airlines such as SIA, compared to most other airlines. Editors striving to standardize layout for all airlines articles might have failed to appreciate this difference.--Vsion 07:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Before I take the suggested break, let me just say that my point about the table is that it doesn't cover the individual market share of the airline, it merely shows that you can buy a ticket going to a certain place with a certain SQ code. The grouping doesn't tell you anything a general understanding of Geography wouldn't, i.e. Southwest Asia and Africa are effectively neighbouring regions because of the ranges of the aircraft involved. It simply doesn't do what it is meant to do. Also, why it is extremely important for only a few airlines when most airlines run codeshares? Since Vsion understands the difference, I am sure he can explain it in detail, which is what I have been trying to get.
 * I'm going to take that break now, see you soon.--Shakujo 07:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why market accessibility is extremely important to SIA, compared to most other airlines? I can certainly explain that. But given that each of my comment has elicited some amount of suspicion and psycho-analysis, why not ask someone you trust to explain it for you. It is quite simple actually, hint: a general understanding of geography (and maybe politics) will help.--Vsion 05:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should explain it, or link to a place where you already have, just to elucidate the matters here.  . V .  [Talk 07:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Market accessibility is a more important issue to Singapore Airlines (SIA) because, unlike most airlines, SIA does not have a domestic aviation market. For almost all other airlines, domestic operation is a significant part of their business, and these markets are generally protected against foreign competition. SIA, on the other hand, does not have this protection and guarantee, each SIA route is a result of international bilateral negiotiation, diplomacy, and agreement. Without access to foreign regional market, SIA would be practically out of business. Codeshare agreements are crucial for SIA because they expose SIA's services to a much larger market. Otherwise, without a protected domestic market itself, SIA would face significant disadvantage competing with other major airlines in air-passenger travels that are not strictly between an international-hub and Singapore. --Vsion 04:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Common style
Is there still an issue with using the basic structure as listed in WikiProject_Airlines with this article? If there is, can someone explain why a common style for all airline articles is bad? After all, styles are used in print material to maintain a common look and feel so that a reader who moves between articles within a category is able to find things in the same place it each article. In other words, the articles have a common look and feel and don't look like there was a different editor for each article. Vegaswikian 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the lack of objections, I'll conclude that using the common format for the layout of articles is acceptable to everyone. Vegaswikian 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Geo-Political Reasons
It would seem from the above comments there are some underlying personal geo-political reasons beyond this discussion. Given that these, whatever they are, must be inherently POV, I suggest that these are not sufficient argument for this article having special status, since the argument in effect is that the edits should not go ahead because they would be NPOV. Therefore, it would seem thatVsion and Huaiwei have failed to provide adequate reason for this article not to undergo the proposed edits. I suggest that we close this mediation and enact the edits.--Shakujo 02:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The mediation is not binding, so I (nor any of the Mediation cabal) can enforce an outcome. This type of mediation is optional, and thus relies on the full cooperation of all parties. If that's no longer possible, there are other means, such as formal mediation or arbitration. However I would urge all parties to sincerely make an effort to continue with this mediation.  . V .  [Talk 03:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would personally think that is jumping the gun a little. Please avoid being too cynical, and dismissive of alternative views. This is not condusive for dispute resolution.--Huaiwei 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This comes back to the earlier point: decisions should be explained giving reasons why. Dispute resolution is impossible if the reasoning behind those disputed decisions are not adequately described. Being cynical is an understandable reaction when Users will only hint at their reasons. If I wrote an article about a cat, others would be rightly cynical, but if the cat in question was the verifiable inspiration behind the main character in a famous poem, subsequent musical and film, then it might be acceptable. This is an opportunity to dismiss any cynicism with verifiable facts. If that cannot be done or an alternate proposal cannot be made then closing the mediation is not jumping the gun.--Shakujo 04:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Constantly dismissing any reasoning for taking a particular position isnt exactly considered constructive, and this actually predates accusations on supposed "unexplained reasonings". Clear, concise reasoning has been given, but are summarily ignored as thou they did not exist, or claimed as perpertually "insufficient". Please draw distinctions between "no reasoning", "insufficient reasoning", and "rejected reasoning" before proceeding. This is not a mono-directional debate with one party expecting only the other to explain his actions.--Huaiwei 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The argument/reason for the table of codeshares was that it covered market share. The counter-argument was that market-share of said airline was not represented by code-shares since the flight was by another airline. If there is further argument for the table please state it.
 * Yet again we need to be careful not to devolve into a discussion about discussions.--Shakujo 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Arguments for the inclusion of the tables where far more elaborate than one simply on market share. Please better understand arguments from the "opposition camp" before dismissing it completely and assuming they are non-existant. And yes, I could agree this discussion should preferably be centered on the topic itself, but perhaps that can only happen when everyone coorperates. It dosent preclude you, or your continued practise of hailing accusations of anti-wiki behavior at your "opponants".--Huaiwei 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the Request for Comment: Reasons For/Against
This a dispute as to what exactly are the reasons for/against accepting the proposed edits above.04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: has been canvassing for this section (example . John Reaves (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, yes, I am quite happy to abide by a consensus of different people. If I am wrong and a majority of people can argue effectively against the points I have made, then I am happy to abide by them, as I was here. This is a community after all.--Shakujo 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, the post Shakujo made was not necessarily canvassing per WP:CANVASS. It is not a partisan message, although I do agree that perhaps the community noticeboard is not the most apt venue for such a post. I'd also like to state that it is somewhat irregular to place an RfC in a mediation cabal case. However, given the long-term nature of this debate, perhaps it would be good to have this RfC on the talk page of the article in question so that this page does not become overburdened in length.  . V .  [Talk 14:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also of note that dropped a note in, which included repeating several allegations of anti-wiki behavior against Vsion and me.--Huaiwei 15:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Shakujo honestly wants more community input and is simply confused about how to ask for it.  Assume good faith.  --Ideogram 20:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do believe he wishes for that as well, although I do not find the inclusion of defamatory comments and accusations entirely neccesary and in good faith.--Huaiwei 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He needs to AGF about you as well. --Ideogram 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think its understandably frustrating when another Editor continues to hold onto an unjustifiable opinion, especially when one assumes AGF by starting off with a discussion rather than just editing away. Especially when said editor has ample opportunity to provide addition reasons for their opinion, but doesn't even though they are active in wikipedia at the time.
 * I would like this discussion to end with agreement by everybody and if there is a reason that sufficiently proves the need for such inclusions in the article I won't remove them now or in the future; however, that has to be backed up by a sufficient reason and no-one has provided one yet. Instead we waste time debating how to debate or the qualifications of those involved. Can we get back to the RfC? As Huaiwei pointed out there are other venues to discuss the bad behaviour of editors.--Shakujo 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand you're frustrated, but judging another editor's opinions as unjustifiable is harmful to the mediation process.  . V .  [Talk 13:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See for related comments.--Huaiwei 14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Reasons For/Against
This a dispute as to what exactly are the reasons for/against accepting the proposed edits above.08:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC Posting
There are three approved methods for seeking community input: asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. The Community Noticeboard is inappropriate. --Ideogram 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Active?
It's been quite a while since anyone posted here; did the parties resolve their differences elsewhere or is the dispute continuing?  . V .  [Talk 02:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is resolved. I think many editors are sitting this out waiting for some sign of change. Maybe we need to test this by making some of the past changes that were reverted and see what happens.  Vegaswikian 20:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Making a change is sometimes a good way to check for consensus. Sometimes, silence can show that people are alright with the edits. Perhaps you should try it, but not in an edit-war or offensive fashion.  . V .  [Talk 07:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get this. The last thing we want is a controversial edit that restart this all over again. We have posted numerous comments and info here. My last comment was was a response to your direct request, I hope that was not a waste of time. Couldn't we work out a solution/closure from all the above comments? What exactly is your mediation methodology? --Vsion 02:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that this is mediation, not arbitration. I cannot decide this case for anyone.  . V .  [Talk 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me an hour or so to get up to speed with the latest talk page discussion on the article.  . V .  [Talk 02:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-familiarized myself with the debate by reading the talk page from top to bottom. I understand there are several contentious content issues here, but I believe bringing in new opinions to the talk page is probably the easiest way to resolve this dispute. This is a particularly complicated situation for mediation, mostly because Wikipedia works based on consensus. So I would advise that if the dispute is continuing, that the editors involved bring in outside opinions to determine a rough consensus of the issues.  . V .  [Talk 03:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)