Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-05 Virgin America


 * Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Who are the involved parties?

 * MilborneOne
 * Aviators99
 * HkCaGu
 * NcSchu
 * 45Factoid44
 * Saxmanjdb
 * 172.164.77.170
 * WFlyer08
 * Cashier freak

What's going on?
We are tyring to decide whether Los Angeles International Airport should be listed as a secondary hub or focus city for Virgin America and we couldn't resolve it on the talk page initially in discussion while edit wars or the content in question and the dispute continued and then we had it protected and began to try and reach consensus through polling and discussion during the protection period but we are currently tied in voting and I feel concerned based on what is currently going on in the Discussion portion of the consensus reaching that even if we get a majority vote everyone will still not accept the outcome and we will still have an unresolved problem.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like input and suggestions of any kind that you can offer and if we need to go to some kind of formal mediation I am ready for that as well. I'm not really sure how you operate or what you do we'll just have to see where you think you can help and how. Thanks.

Mediator notes
Unless there are any objections, we will discuss this on the talk page of the affected article Mayalld (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Some users have complained about other users discussing progress in amongst the tightly regulated discussion of the issues. Whilst I am taking a fairly relaxed view of this, I will defer to those who want a clearer black and white as to what is correct and what is not.

Please could any procedural issues be brought to my attention on the case talk page

Thanks Mayalld (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Closing this mediation attempt.

Early in the mediation process, it was pointed out that 45Factoid44 (the user that brought this case) had previously edited as 96.5.66.240, and that 96.5.66.240 was now editing again, and taking a similar position to 45Factoid44.

Prior to the mediation starting, 45Factoid44 had posted a message to his user space, indicating that (as a result of this dispute), he was leaving Wikipedia.

Once this was pointed out, I enquired of both the registered user and the IP, and received assurances that the two were not the same person, and did not know each other, and that it was entirely co-incidental that they shared an IP address and opinions. This was accepted by all parties in good faith.

As the mediation has progressed, 45Factoid44 has posted little, but the IP address has involved himself in the mediation, culminating in an attack on my neutrality, a statement that he would not accept the result, and editing the article against clear consensus. The IP editor was expressing ownership of a process initiated by somebody who posted from the same IP in the past, but still maintained that they were different people.

It is now clear to me that;
 * 1) There is a clear consensus (indeed near unanimity) that LAX is a Focus city.
 * 2) Only 45Factoid44 and 96.5.66.240 dissent from this consensus.
 * 3) Adequate reliable sources to support this conclusion exist.
 * 4) No reliable sources to oppose this conclusion.
 * 5) 45Factoid44 and 96.5.66.240 both seek to use WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to support their view, and to dismiss any source that "gets the answer wrong" as not reliable. This makes a mockery of the whole reliable sources policy, as they believe that no reliable sources support views other than their own, because any source that opposes their view must be unreliable.
 * 6) The IP editor and 45Factoid44 have both connected from a single static IP allocated to ENA.COM as part of a /15
 * 7) This IP would appear to belong to an educational institution in Nashville, TN (possibly Lipscomb University, given the prevalence of edits to this article from the IP)
 * 8) Per WP:DUCK, the coincidence that two users at the same university just happen to share the exact same opinion that all other dissent from, and that the second user should attempt to own the process started by the first, stretches credibility, and I am drawn to the inescapable conclusion that 45Factoid44 and 96.5.66.240 are, in fact, the same person, using two identities to set out a view that this is not a single user at odds with all other. If not direct sockpuppetry, this is at the very least meatpuppetry.
 * 9) The stated determination to ignore this MEDCAB looks like forum shopping - "I will keep bringing this up until I find a forum that agrees with me"

For this reason, I am closing this MEDCAB request as unsucessful, whilst expressing my conclusion that those who seek to include LAX as a Focus City have proved their case to my satisfaction.

I must criticise the actions of 45Factoid44 and 96.5.66.240, and state that I can no longer assume good faith, in the face of overwhelming evidence to tyhe contrary. Should disruption to the article continue, a report to WP:SSP and/or WP:RCU would be entirely appropriate.

Mayalld (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)