Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Airlines and Aviation

Initiated by Star Mississippi at 03:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Star Mississippi

The two sprawling threads above and the related RfCs especially with respect to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_187#RfC_on_the_"Airlines_and_destinations"_tables_in_airport_articles show that the community is at an impasse. ArbComm does not handle content issues, but this has become a conduct issue due to the underlying disagreements. I do not believe Vanguard10 needs to be a party as they have "retired" but they were the subject so I have included. If I erred with any parties, please let me know.

  • @HouseBlaster:, I'm happy to be if it's helpful to committee or necessary, but I don't think I need to be. My action was limited to a temp block of Vanguard10 due to conduct within the current thread and realization that there was no consensus over a month. Star Mississippi 04:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
@Izno my apologies. That's probably my relative unfamiliarity with ArbComm process. I believed I was supposed to indicate those who had been engaged with the extant discussions. You can disregard my list entirely. Star Mississippi 01:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanguard10

I urge ArbCom to take on this case for several reasons:
1. Address the question to whether some articles (with the exception of highly charged political articles, which this is not) can impose different or stricter requirements than is required to other articles. Can a Wikiproject do so or are they bound by only the general Wikipedia rules and cannot make up their own different rules?

2. Address whether it is acceptable to weaponize ANI to gain advantage in a content dispute. Even if deemed not acceptable, what if it happens?

3. Address whether an article should meet the criteria that it covers the topic adequately. Verifiability is important in Wikipedia but should truth and overall coverage also be a factor?

4. The editorial topics in question have been debated for a long time (years) but have not seen a resolution.

5. Are personal attacks ever acceptable in Wikipedia? If not, why is there not a mechanism to adequately address and resolve these?

A personal note, this whole matter has soured my desire to participate in Wikipedia such that I am retired. However, I will return to Wikipedia solely to resolve this potential arbitration case and peg my chances of returning to Wikipedia at about 3%, but not in 2026 and not a high likelihood of 2027. I cannot rule out 2028 at the moment. The act of retirement from Wikipedia should give ArbCom pause and think "why has an editor with nearly a decade of work feel they want to leave Wikipedia (10 years will be in January 2027).

I am not too involved in the actual debate or editing in the topic but am in the center and the target of the ANI report that resulted in this ArbCom request. As such, I should be involved. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell writes "It is, however, a particularly acrimonious content dispute and a case may be worthwhile if there is evidence that the acrimony stems from the conduct of a small number of editors. "(bold added)
To that, I quote the following editors:

Reywas92: Recently certain users, primarily Danners430, while performing patrolling of changes to airport articles, have been overzealous... (source: this request for arbitration [])

DocJames: Hum User:Danners430 removed details about MEA three times in less than 36 hours. (source: this request for arbitration [])

DocJames: Content disputes, where the position of the community is unclear, should not generally be decided by banning one side or the other. source: Doc James 10:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC) []

wbm1058: Searching that (my standard due-diligence search for candidates for adminship) I find 17 matches on "reported by User:Danners430", and wonder why they find so many editors whose behavior is so bad and otherwise unresolvable that they need to escalate the matter to the incidents board. I see that many of them result in blocks or warnings, but in one case both were blocked (Danners430 has been blocked 3 times this year) (source: this request for arbitration [])

wbm1058: Danners430 who apparently is abusing ANI in order to accuse editors of disruption in a content matter for which there is no consensus, in order to force their position on the content, rather than attempting to settle the content dispute in a more appropriate venue. – wbm1058 13:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC) []

Drmies: As a side note, User:Danners430, you'd be doing all of us, and yourself, a favor if you would stop commenting here--just stop. ...source Drmies 15:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC) []

HJ Mitchell writes in this request "Examples of conduct that ArbCom could look at would be ... treating the topic like a battleground instead of seeking middle ground," as well as " acrimony stems from the conduct of a small number of editors."
Danners430 exactly fulfills that criteria, sad to say.

Vanguard10 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Vanguard10 that's actually fairly helpful in moving the case request along but what it really needs is diffs. This isn't a case so we don't need a long list but a few diffs of unhelpful conduct from Danners and a link to a discussion about their conduct that shows the community can't agree would be sufficient to include them as a party to a prospective case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Izno I am a good choice as a party to arbitration because:
1. I am the subject of the ANI complaint
2. I have 9.75 years of Wikipedia participation but have retired because of this matter. Loss of long time Wikipedia editors over a situation should prompt some thought.
3. I have extremely limited participation in the overall debate or topic so there is not a long list of diffs or long history to explain but it easily shows the problem (just a few edits then WHAM, ANI by Danners430)
Background: I have a long history of editing but not in the airport destinations list. I merely saw an airport that I have knowledge of (Melilla Airport) and thought "this list gives such a distorted view of the airport because the main route that constitutes a majority of the flights and passenger traffic is not listed, only some minor routes". When I corrected it, I suffered the immediate and harsh retribution by Danners430 who, without much discussion, took me to ANI and sought to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia (technical Wikipedia lingo is "indefinite block") . When I complained about the toxicity of Wikipedia, I was blocked for 31 hours, the only block in my 9.75 year history with Wikipedia.
4. Danners430 is a good party for arbitration because he/she is very dedicated to removal of information from these lists and has been described above (see my section in this arbitration request that quotes multiple other editors []). I do not list diffs for him/her because his/her edits are merely reverts. A one line revert doesn't show the extent of the issue. However, here is two sample diffs:>>>>> [] still happening / diff within the last 48 hours and [] Danners430 is also so active that there is insufficient manpower in Wikipedia to bring all of his/her changes of Wikipedia up for discussion because it might take 30 times the effort for each of his/her edits to be discussed and he/she edits 10 times more frequently than average (estimated) such that it would require an army of 300 editors to police Danners430.
Danners430 is a good party to arbitration because it is clear that he/she is either the source of the problem or is very pervasively intertwined in the issue.
StarMississppi is a good party to arbitration because he is the source of the initial request and is the person who blocked me for 31 hours. I was blocked after complaining about toxicity in Wikipedia within the ANI thread. His inclusion would not be to sanction him but to study the issue of toxicity in Wikipedia and the use of blocks. That is an important issue because blocks in Wikipedia (probably more than 99.9%) are never reversed.
The parties to arbitration are basically Danners430 and who interacted with him/her, which are those originally listed in the arbitration request.
@HJ MitchellSee the above few paragraphs for diffs (WP marks them as diff 8 and 9 and I add a >>>>> to highlight it for you. I also added diffs after the quoted user comments, per your request. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Doc James

Commented at WP:AN and at WP:RS on this topic over the last month or two. As a reader I have found our material on were flights go from an airport useful. Do not think I have made any edits in this area (though maybe a couple). Ie not really involved.

Developing consensus is difficult. I see issues with the behavior of individuals on both sides, but have not looked deep enough to make any conclusions. Failure to develop consensus, in and of itself, is not justification for an arbcom case.

Yes references are required on EN WP, the type of reference needed for what airlines goes from A to B should not be that arduous since for most people it is not controversial. EN WikiVoyage may take in the material if EN WP does not want it.

Likely we need to go source by source to see if consensus can be developed for any sources. Have started here. Ie in my opinion this arbcom case is too early.

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a few folks are simply hoping arbcom will solve this content dispute in their favor... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hum User:Danners430 removed details about MEA three times in less than 36 hours. Oct 19th 11:43 no refs Oct 20th 16:42 references present Oct 20 19:30 despite references present Plus they have another revert of flags to that article.Oct 20th 12:24 And they made no comments on the talk page. Anyway started the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Danners430

I’ve been a recent changes patroller for some six years, initially in the UK rail Wikiproject. In early 2025 I found myself looking at Airport articles, and was honestly taken aback by what I found. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of facts verified by reliable sources, which is written in policy – and what I found in these articles as I looked around was paragraphs and paragraphs of unsourced and often fancrufty content. The worst parts of almost every article were the destination lists – sometimes huge, sprawling tables, with frequently the vast majority of entries unsourced. There were definitely tables which were meticulously and properly sourced – but these unfortunately seemed to be the exception, not the rule.

There have previously been numerous attempts to come to some form of consensus on these tables – the RfCs are listed at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. The last RfC before I entered the project area concluded that these lists don’t fail WP:NOT… a view that I may not hold, but consensus is consensus so I abide by it. As I started to see edits appear on my watchlist however, the amount of new unsourced content was equally alarming, so I opened a new RfC – specifically focussed on whether these lists should exist of not. that RfC (and its BEFORE) could not come to any consensus on inclusion, so the problem continued. Given the lack of consensus, I’m not about to start removing these lists – that would be stretching WP:BOLD to beyond breaking point in my personal opinion. However, I have been attempting to gradually clean these tables up by removing unreliable sources (eg. WP:AEROROUTES is still in over 1000 articles) and remove the unsourced content. This last action has proved contentious, with Wbm1058 going as far as to accuse me of introducing issues of “lying by exclusion” through this action… despite the removal of unsourced content being explicitly permitted by WP:Verifiability.

There is most definitely an issue of conduct here, but I don’t believe it can really be focused on any one or group of editors… rather it’s just a constant battle against unsourced, poorly sourced and disruptive content being added. In the last 24 hours for example, I count 19 edits introducing some level of unsourced content to these destination tables, including one by a fellow editor named in this case, Reywas92.

Finally, there have been a disappointing number of ANI/AIV threads regarding conduct in Aviation articles. Having done some digging, I’ve opened approximately 85 AIV cases alone relating to conduct in aviation articles, all of which resulted in an editor being blocked. This stat honestly concerns me – it’s far from something I’m proud of… it’s indicative of a problem with how this project area is working. There’s obviously an issue here, and I urge ArbCom to step in as we the community are obviously unable to do so. Danners430 tweaks made 19:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Doc James the discussion regarding this is on the other editor's talk page, where further explanation is provided. Danners430 tweaks made 19:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Reywas92 You quite literally added content with a Citation Needed tag, which was quickly removed under guise of it being verified by some unknown source when it was pointed out. Adding content with a Citation Needed tag is you knowingly adding unsourced content, unless you are admitting here that you are blindly adding content without proper review? Danners430 tweaks made 20:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Wbm1058 As I also made clear multiple times at the ANI, as soon as I became aware that there was no existing consensus against the use of things like booking engines that I could fine, I stopped removing them as unreliable. There is currently a discussion regarding such sources at the appropriate venue, WP:RSN - there is zero reason why a 9-year-old consensus cannot be challenged, which is why that discussion exists. Danners430 tweaks made 14:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Vanguard10 You’ve quoted a large number of talk messages, and follow it up with an assertion… yet have no evidence beyond the opinions of others to back it up. Some diffs would help your statement go from aspersions to fact. Danners430 tweaks made 06:49, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Danners430 You are correct that all we have at the moment are assertions but your name has come up repeatedly at this early stage. This would be a good opportunity, before the snowball starts gaining momentum, for you to refute the assertions, to make counter-assertions, or even just to take a look in the mirror and consider whether you're part of the reason for the acrimony or at least whether you could do anything to improve it. That's not an accusation, just food for thought. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:10, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Wbm1058 you conveniently leave out that your comment was responded to almost immediately, specifically 11 minutes later, with an explanation. Danners430 tweaks made 14:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by WhatamIdoing

Who should be in the case:

I provided some advice on the recent RFCs for this subject area and have been pinged into several subsequent discussions. There is a list of RFCs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Airlines and destinations. However, I don't watch articles in this area or normally edit them unless I need an example for a discussion, and therefore my view of what happens on the day-to-day level is limited. I only found out about the most recent ANI discussion because of a note at voy:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Airport destinations. I probably shouldn't be in the case.

I also doubt that Doc James should be part of this case, as he rarely edits airport or airline articles.

Whether there should be a case:

From what I've seen in the occasional bigger dispute since the last two RFCs, I think that the question of sourcing for airport and airline destinations is primarily a content dispute. The facts in question generally prove to be Wikipedia:Glossary#verifiable if anyone looks for a source. The adding and blanking behavior is just a means towards the end, which is aligning the article's content with the editor's view of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g., "It's misleadingly incomplete!" vs "Only a traveler would care, and we're WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE!"). We want editors to use their judgment, and eventually they appear to reach consensus in each individual article.

The behavioral problems appear to be secondary to the content dispute, and they are so broad and general that I don't think ArbCom could do anything beyond calling for the community to have more RFCs, which IMO would likely not reach a clear consensus.

Specifically, the theme is about the problem of working together, especially when I want ____ to happen, but I really, really don't want to do it myself:

If Editor "A" believes that uncited content is inherently plusbad, and Editor "A" does not like adding sources when it's Wikipedia:Somebody else's problem (or dislikes the content and wants an excuse to remove it), then is Editor "A" ever required to consider anything beyond the absence of a little blue clicky number, such as:

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Izno, the list of editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Airports might be useful for assembling a list of potential parties. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Wbm1058

This is the first time in my memory that I've been named as a proposed party in an arbitration case. I try really hard to keep the occasional disagreements I become involved in confined to article or project talk pages, or to my personal talk. Although I've made over 300,000 edits, placing me among the Top 200 all-time on English Wikipedia by edit count (not including my bots) I've not yet ever started a discussion at the administrators incidents noticeboard. When I've come to an impasse (which rarely happens) I've put the matter on ice for later, and found when I revisit six months, or a year or two later, the matter often has lost its relevance, resolved itself or is much easier to finally resolve than it was when I first tried.

But here I am, because I felt compelled to respond to incidents I've observed reported by another editor. Searching that (my standard due-diligence search for candidates for adminship) I find 17 matches on "reported by User:Danners430", and wonder why they find so many editors whose behavior is so bad and otherwise unresolvable that they need to escalate the matter to the incidents board. I see that many of them result in blocks or warnings, but in one case both were blocked (Danners430 has been blocked 3 times this year), and another found no violation. I've already been accused of "stalking" Danners430 edits, and see that I'm not the only one they've accused of stalking them. I'm not an active editor of airport articles, and only arrived here when I ran across an "eyebrow-raising edit" by Danners430 while on one of my usual work patrols as an underappreciated gnome. Even then it wasn't until a month later that I actually responded in a noticeboard discussion, after the matter, despite my patience and hopes, did not resolve on its own. I'm not keen on participating here; I have lots of work backlogs and editors asking me for help, but, I guess if I am called to serve my duty by participating, I may need to stalk more to find diffs to present in the evidence phase, since my participation to date has been peripheral and limited; I've barely scratched the surface of the long history of this content dispute. I'm in general agreement with the statement by WhatamIdoing, who is much more familiar with the situation than I am. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to make this about Airlines and Aviation, broadly construed. From my standpoint, the contentious topic is limited to the Airlines and destinations sections of airport articles. Whether these sections should exist at all, and, if they do, it is acceptable to knowingly and intentionally show incomplete, sometimes blatantly incomplete, lists or tables in Airlines and destinations sections which mislead readers about available airlines and might bias them towards using one airline over another. Limiting the scope to that should make for a better-focused resolution. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Current guidelines are found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content § Airlines and destinations. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 17 § RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables – The result of the discussion is that Option B should be implemented: references must be provided, and "searchable" websites are suitable for such references. Almost everyone agreed that WP:V was a priority, but more people felt it was acceptable that references didn't need to be perfect to be useful. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC) I'm not aware of any more recent discussions that overturned this consensus which was established 8 years ago. When I pointed this out in the AN/I discussion, Danners430 responded that they never even went that far into the archives! More recently, there is consensus that airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. I don't really understand that. We need to find independent, reliable, secondary sources that state that destination tables in Wikipedia articles represent all significant viewpoints about where airlines fly to from specific airports?! – wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Re: looking for diffs – I'll just give one from the most recent noticeboard discussion special:diff/1380219843: And now Danners430 has casted aspersions at me in this edit summary – show me the diffs, please. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC) I got a response from EEng but not Danners. Still waiting for him to show me one other addition which I restored without a reliable source. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, I took plenty of other additions which you are now restoring without a reliable source to mean plenty of other additions in plenty of other airport articles (given that when I "stalk" his other edits I see edits to plenty of other airport articles). He explained to me that he meant plenty of other additions in just that single airport article (where "plenty" turned out to be only one). Sorry, I guess this is just an example of communication going off the rails. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Reywas92

It has been decades-long practice to include airline and destination tables in airport articles, which I believe is highly relevant, useful, and encyclopedic information about the airport. While historical practice has was previously to remove inline sources that announced dates for new routes after they started, leaving them undersourced, there is not and never has been a widespread issue with their content, which is neither complex nor contentious, and these lists have seen substantial improvements in sourcing recently.

Destinations served from an airport are typically easy to verify, with sourcing available from airports' websites, airlines' websites, flight information sites, and news articles. Although some tables remain undersourced, particularly as new and unregistered users unfamiliar with citations contribute in good faith to these articles, general sources and airline- or route-specific sources can nearly always verify the content, and they should be added to articles before the information they verify is removed.

Recently certain users, primarily Danners430, while performing patrolling of changes to airport articles, have been overzealous with reverting and deleting any content that appears unsourced or undersourced. Rather than tagging longstanding accurate content as needing sources or adding easy-to-find sources, he removes it altogether, which is more difficult to properly restore and address when an article is made incomplete. Even if the removal of unsourced content is permitted, I do not believe the verifiable information should be removed in mass this way – it is not being challenged as inaccurate or unverifiable, rather simply that a source is not on it. The policy WP:BURDENWAIT says to "Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added" and "to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it." Wikipedia is not, in fact, made better by deleting verifiable albeit unsourced content. We have three-quarters of a million articles in Category:Articles with unsourced statements, and proper clean-up is not to go through them and delete anything without sources on sight – regardless of what is permitted – but rather to consider if sources can be found. I have rarely seen Danners430 actually contribute sources or otherwise add to these sections, only delete content, if not entire rows or tables that are verifiable.

Finally, I take exception to Danners430's false accusation in his statement that I added unsourced information to an article today. In fact, my edit added three sources to the article that verified the information that was restored to the page, which Danners430 had removed despite being accurate and verifiable and having just had sources added by another user. Even if some of those sources were suboptimal, Danners430 simply removed the content altogether rather than tagging as needing better sources or unsourced. The information is verifiable and did not need to be deleted like that. Reywas92Talk 20:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

To the above, again, the three sources I added ALL verified this content. My inadvertent restoration of a cn tag along with the accurate and verifiable content needlessly deleted does not actually mean I added unsourced content. This sole obsession with what sources are on an article without regard to the actual content and if it's otherwise verifiable is what's gotten all of us into this mess. Reywas92Talk 21:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Chaotic Enby

( peanut gallery comment) Would the roads wiki take in airways? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I've participated in some of the RFCs and some of the other discussions but I think that's the extent of my involvement. My impression is that a few editors who have very strong views have been trying to force their view on the wiki in a way that would present a fait accompli if everybody doing it shared the same POV. It has also felt like some of those favouring exclusion have been acting in no true Scotsman-type arguments: "these can't be sourced" → "these can't be reliably sourced" → "that type of source isn't reliable" → "that type of source is only reliable if X" → "that type of source is only reliable if X and Y"... however (part of) this may be coloured by my own POV (that destination information is encyclopaedic and mostly well-sourced). I would suggest that a case look at the behaviour of those most active in the discussions and see whether their actions are hindering the forming of a consensus (or possibly making it look like there isn't a consensus when there is one). Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Several people have suggested a CT designation. I'm not convinced that this alone will make any difference, given the issue isn't admin actions being overturned or pushing of a real-world POV. However, if one is imposed the scope doesn't need to be wider than "Airline and airport destinations, broadly interpreted". I would not limit it to just "tables" as discussions about the tables and suggested alternatives to tables (e.g. lists) have been as problematic as the tables themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by mdm.bla

Anecdotal and irrelevant, but I also find these table broadly helpful and I !voted to allow primary sources at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists 2 and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements.

I do think this is has become a conduct dispute. There have been many ANI reports about airlines and destinations going back to 2015. Beyond what's already been linked, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#User:Reywas92 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1212#Constantly_destroying_of_a_wikiproject: may be of interest to the case request; both reports were archived without action. Arbitrators may also be interested in the closure review of the 2023 RfC. mdm.bla 22:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: [removing] all airport destaination tables and [combining] the destination section with the statistics section, listing only [...] are purely content decisions, which ArbCom will not rule on. Declaring a CTOP, however, seems likely if a case is accepted; per Wbm1058 the CTOP should probably be limited to Lists and tables of airlines and destinations, not Airlines and aviation, broadly construed. mdm.bla 15:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Asilvering: I don't necessarily think that a CTOP is needed, but based on vibes (content dispute that occasionally boils over into monster RfCs, conduct disputes, and acrimonious ANI threads) I get the feeling that a case would result in one (à la WP:CT/CID and WP:CT/AT per RoySmith). I do think that a potential "Hail Mary" could be a motion trialling a CTOP with Wikipedia:Enforced BRD turned on by default, revisiting in 3–6 months to decide if a full case is needed or if the CTOP should be extended/adjusted/sunsetted. But maybe that's a terrible idea. mdm.bla 18:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon (Airports)

ArbCom should accept this case. This is a dispute that is partly about encyclopedic content but is complicated by conduct, and has been going on at WP:ANI for more than a month, and has been recurring for at least fifteen years. ArbCom has been created and elected to resolve conduct disputes that the community is not able to resolve. In this case, there are article content issues, policy issues, and conduct issues. The article content issues include whether airline and airport articles should include lists of destinations. The policy issues include how editors should deal with unverified information, including unverified information in lists of destinations, by removing the unverified information, tagging it as unverified, sourcing it, or leaving it alone. The policy issues also include what are reliable sources for the lists of destinations, and whether the lists of destinations are non-encyclopedic because Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The conduct issues appear to reflect strong feelings about what is best for the encyclopedia that cloud the judgment of editors, resulting in slow-motion edit wars and personal attacks. The users who are disrupting the discussion of air destination content disputes are doing so in good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, but sometimes good faith isn't enough.

This case has been especially difficult for the community to deal with, because it not only has conduct issues interfering with the resolution of article content issues, but also policy issues. The policy issues should be resolved in order to facilitate resolution of the article content issues, but the conduct issues are hindering solution of both the content issues and the policy issues.

A brief search of the archives of DRN shows that there were airline disputes in 2011 and 2012, and there have been disputes from time to time since then. The community is not able to resolve the problem of these continuing disputes by community consensus. (If they could have, they would have already.)

What is clear at this time is that ArbCom should declare airline and airport articles to be a contentious topic, and authorize administrators to deal with disruptive editors. ArbCom should also review the history of at least the last four or five years of conflict to determine whether particular editors are interfering with dispute resolution, and take appropriate action. ArbCom should leave the listing of parties open for the first week or so of the case, because certain editors not in the list of parties may be found to be contributors to the conflict.

ArbCom should open a case. A contentious topic finding will be part of the solution. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

I mulled over starting a case at ANI; my principal issue is I'm not sure if it can be boiled down to specific participants. As I said on my talk page not long ago, my issues are:

  • Lots of editors, ranging from brand new to experienced, have strong views on airport / aviation articles for reasons that completely escape me
  • Conduct issues range from arguing at AfDs and deletion reviews (eg: the two I mentioned at ANI) to edit-warring and personal attacks (such as the TA I just blocked)
  • Other editors have mentioned that aviation is a contentious topic full of fighting over trivial details
  • In general, the problems with conduct are relatively minor, and involve many editors, so the traditional method of gaining consensus for a contentious topic via an Arbcom motion are difficult.
The problem is more that these minor disputes carry on for years and years and exacerbate things. .... there have been a couple of RfCs on aviation that went round in circles (there's some reference to that in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Mauritius destinations or the related deletion review, I think).

I'm not sure that this is the Hail Mary that Asilvering wants, but my suggestion is, rather than a case, pass a motion to make Airlines and Aviation a contentious topic and ramp up the amount of sanctions in that area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

The precedent I would give for proposing a CTOP is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. I see parallels between that case and this request; the behaviour of individuals wasn't really egregious enough to involve sanctions, but the overall content disagreement was so large and entrenched, it spilled over into conduct problems. And that's where we are now, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Skip the case, which will be a waste of everyone's time, especially ArbCom as it's a content issue. Designate a CTOP for the area (possibly with a 12-month sunset for no admin actions being performed) and move on. It is the community's job to figure out the contrast between WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE, which appears to be evolving into a new inclusionist-deletionist-type debate. (In my view, all that's needed for resolution is a sensible application of good faith and common sense—see WP:BURDENWAIT in particular—but I appear to be in the minority.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by 10mmsocket

I think the arbitrators should take this on because there's an opportunity to make a simple-to-implement and lasting decision:

It would stop all arguments in one fell swoop and be a huge improvement to airport articles.--10mmsocket (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Just to add it would easily answer the question "who flies from there and where do they go" (at least for the most popular destinations); it would make these articles less of a cruft magnet, needing far less frequent updates; and it would fulfil WP:NOTTRAVEL 10mmsocket (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks to @RoySmith and @Mdm.Bla for the clarification on the role of the arbitrators. Perhaps pending and ruling we (the community of editors) should try to get our act together. One can only hope. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by RoySmith

I'm not a huge fan of CTOP; I grudgingly admit it serves a purpose, but I'm concerned that its use has become normalized and is now a tool we reach for too often and too quickly. What strikes me about the suggestion that Airlines and Aviation might be made into a CTOP is that these fall into two distinct classes. Most of the extant CTOPs are things that people fight about IRL and the hostilities just slop over into the wiki: politics, ethnicities, gender, etc. And then we've got purely internal wiki-battles like capitalisation, infoboxes, and BLP. A&A would certainly be the latter group. What I'm wondering is if these groups are different enough from each other as to require different approaches (although I'm not quite what what they would be). Orthogonal to that, if we were going to move in the CTOP direction, A&A seems like it might be too narrow a focus, as much the same debates happen over train stations, bus routes, and to a certain extent roads (although, as Chaotic Enby notes, that issue eventually resolved itself). RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure this doesn't need saying but since 10mmsocket brought it up, a decision such as remove all airport destaination tables would be stepping way over the "arbcom does not determine content" line. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

I've brushed up against this issue indirectly and resolved not to get involved, though I've always questioned the inclusion of such lists due to their relatively ephemeral content and the need for continual updates, and because accurate sources necessitates (IMO) reference to primary sources. I don't agree that it is a content issue, at least one concerning the facts themselves; it is a higher level issue over what content is appropriate, so I don't think that CTOP is going to resolve the behavioral issues. I'm involved with two parallel problems: the station issue, which has been referred to above but which actually goes quite a bit deeper, and the ongoing struggle over inclusion of minor populated places, which has resulted in a long series of failed discussions over WP:GEOLAND. If we could come up with a way to resolve this kind of inclusion conflict it would be a good thing; as it is, the disputes never end and the persisting result is maintenance of the status quo due to exhaustion. Mangoe (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

I haven't looked deeply enough into this to know if this is simply a deeply entrenched content dispute that ArbCom cannot help with, or if there are editors exhibiting bad behavior that the community is unable to deal with. I do know, however, that this has been a slow-burn source of drama for months if not years, with RfCs and noticeboard discussions ongoing for much of that time. If there are genuine bad actors here, a CTOP designation would help with that, by permitting the use of AE (AN/ANI discussions get swamped by involved actors) and by allowing single admins to impose page-level restrictions and individual TBANs. The sticky nature of CTOP sanctions is secondary to me, and has been for some time: IMO we have largely moved past the era of admins using the second-mover advantage to prevent sanctions in contentious areas. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by BilledMammal

I have identified 33 discussions over 10 years related to this dispute.

Reviewing these discussions, the pattern seems to be that various editors attempt to enforce referencing standards and RfC consensus on airline destination tables, only to face pushback - even when all the editor is doing is applying "citation needed" tags. It appears that usually this pushback works, but in this case it didn't as Danners430 persisted, which is why we are now at ARBCOM.

I think this shows an ArbCom case is necessary, as there is a long running issue here of editors obstructing the enforcement of consensus and core policies.

This may help construct an initial party list; Danners430, and the editors who obstructed him, including Reywas92 and Vanguard10. I will conduct a deeper review when I have time and try to identify additional relevant parties who behaved like Danners430 or Reywas92/Vanguard10. I also reviewed the discussion for bludgeoning which may suggest adding Sunnya343 and WhatamIdoing (SportingFlyer is inactive).

I have also created a conservative estimate of who is adding this unsourced content, which may suggest additional parties. I can also try to produce any other data that editors or arbs request. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Pinguinn

I think this is a policy issue, not a content or conduct issue. The history of WT:V from Archive 86 onwards shows that there are open and unanswered questions about the interactions between WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and WP:NOCON. In my opinion that's the real source of the airline dispute and the community should first attempt to resolve the policy issue peacefully before going guns blazing into a case. Pinguinn 🐧 06:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Super Goku V

So far, the best alternative to a case that I have read would be mdm.bla's suggestion. Personally, this might be best to give the community a second chance at trying to figure out its own problems. Sure, the currently ANI discussion is very long and ended up going nowhere fast, but there were multiple different things going on at once. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Vanguard10: Personally, I think this is beyond that ANI discussion, but if you want to be a party, you should note that there are word limits at Arbitration: Submissions are limited to 500 words of rendered wikitext, plus 50 diffs. I get that you think you were done wrong by that discussion, but the block was correct and I advise that you review the guide to arbitration if you have not. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@In General: If there is disagreement on CTOPs here, then fine. I still think that a case might be a bit much here. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SportingFlyer

I'm not on here much anymore, but noticed this. We keep trying to agree on what rules should exist here, and then we have various editors trying to enforce the rules as they interpret them. I'd accept this primarily to review user conduct. SportingFlyer T·C 14:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by TooManyFingers

Agreeing with Pinguinn. These disputes over content and subsequent disputes over conduct are merely symptoms of inadequate policy, especially regarding which kinds of content can be included and which cannot. Unless and until content policy is changed to decisively settle this thing one way or the other, constant dispute and constant battle are in fact the only sane course of action for these editors to pursue. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

asilvering wrote: If anyone has a last-minute Hail Mary idea, now's your chance to propose it.

On the assumption that you really meant the usual interpretation of a Hail Mary idea, i.e. accepting a ridiculous risk in the hope that it will work, then I think there's only one risky move that could actually solve anything: a unilateral change to Wikipedia's content policy in which a winner in this dispute is unequivocally and unashamedly declared - not because either side is right, but because even a wrong-but-clear ruling is better than this.

There is never going to be a consensus on this, ever. This needs to be legislated. I do support one side over the other, but even if my side is the loser, my side will still be in a better position after legislation, because everyone will benefit from clarity.

If unilateral policy decisions are truly absolutely impossible, then I think Mary is no more help than I am. Letting them continue to fight it out forever is the other choice. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:53, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why the Committee should or should not accept the case request or provide additional information.

Airlines and Aviation: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Airlines and Aviation: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)