Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-11/Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Where is the dispute?
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

What is the dispute?
B'ham35242:

Per United Airlines timetables, UA Flight 875/876 will fly directly from SEA to SIN with a stop in NRT. The flight uses the same aircraft (a Boeing 777-200 on both legs). Also, Narita is not a hub of any kind for United therefore it can be listed as a destination. However, IP editors are not complying with the WP:AIRPORTS guidelines for listing of direct and nonstop flights. Just wanted to know if Singapore should be listed as a direct destination from Seattle.

Wickedlyperfect18:

The above statement is true, though I would also like to mention that the aforementioned editor (as well as others) has also listed Beijing and Hong Kong (which will replace Beijing) as direct destinations flown by Northwest Airlines. However, there are a number of local and other editors, including myself, who have spoken out on the issue, who believe it is deceptive and inaccurate for Wikipedia editors to add these "direct" destinations, as they stop at an airport (in this case, Tokyo-Narita) to unload passengers for which the city is the final destination, as well as board new passengers flying to the "direct" destination.

I strongly believe that most average users who are unaware of the existence of WP:AIRPORTS and are just looking for information will believe that these "direct" destinations are actually nonstop destinations. There is no indication or footnote that tells the user that "direct" destinations exist amongst the nonstop destinations, nor is there a caveat to suggest that not all of the destinations one sees are nonstop.

I understand and appreciate the fact that WP:AIRPORTS exists, and that there are guidelines for consistency. However, attempts to try to have a conversation and debate about this issue on the SEA talk page only results in bureaucratic responses, ranging from suggesting that people are "narrow-minded" to only consider nonstop flights to refusing to engage in dialogue and quite honestly, treating the editors like children, giving off a vibe of "WP:AIRPORTS is the law and authority and therefore you must obey. I don't care about your sentiments, thoughts, or input, what I say goes, so don't question authority."

There is a statement in bold at the bottom of the content section of WP:AIRPORTS that states in bold - "Finally, remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article." The stance of the editors supporting the inclusion of direct destinations completely contradicts this statement. The editor above wants us to take the conversation to WP:AIRPORTS page, but flat out refuses to acknowledge and respond to the questions and commentary on the SeaTac Airport page in a satisfactory matter, telling us to bow down to WP:AIRPORTS without providing any additional rationale or insightful thoughts on the matter. As of now, there is a new conversation going on about this very issue on the WP:AIRPORTS page, but I find it contradictory that the editor above tells us to go discuss it on WP:AIRPORTS, when he refuses to have a substantive discussion on the page where people take issue with it in the first place. Please take a look at the Seattle-Tacoma airport talk page for more information. Thank you.

How do you think we can help?
B'ham35242:

Talk with the editors disputing about the WP:AIRPORTS guidelines and if they are against it, then take the discussion there.

Wickedlyperfect18:

It would be simply dashing if you could talk about the importance of discussion as a medium towards understanding, as well as the importance and etiquette of a) not striking out all of your comments whenever someone disagrees with you, b) telling everyone that they are "goody two shoes" and that they can all go "rot in hell", and c) "retiring" only to create a new alias that exhibits very similar editing patterns - this could quite possibly could be evidence of sock puppetry. I will let you be the judge of the aforementioned hypothesis, as I am still reading up on what exactly defines a Wikipedia sock puppet. Please note that I'm perfectly willing to have a down-to-earth, respectful conversation, but only if the opposing parties are willing to do the same. Thanks!

Mediator notes
It's not clear, what part of WP:AIRPORTS prescribes how routes should be listed? Gigs (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer is WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT Gigs (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing Notes
Takeoff was rejected on this case by the mediation filer on the grounds that the two editors are now working together constructively. He has asked for a third opinion on the airports guidelines which I will provide. I am closing this case. Gigs (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Please direct all discussion to Wikipedia talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-08-11/Seattle-Tacoma_International_Airport.