Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines/Archive 1

Huaiwei's agreement

Before wasting yet more electrons on this, I suggest we wait for Huaiwei to indicate clearly whether he will or will not agree to this mediation, as (to the best of my knowledge) he never agreed to the previous three Mediation Cabal attempts.

As per WP:RFM guidelines, he has until 23:58, May 15, 2008 (UTC) to agree, barring which the mediation will fail and I would fully support sending this to ArbCom. Jpatokal (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite on the contrary, Jpatokal, I have agreed to and participated in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines despite no reciprocal committments from any other user based on the terms I have stated clearly:

"Before others approach this MedCab without full understanding of its purpose, I would call for all to acquaint themselves with it, and to reread the nomination reasoning behind this case before proceeding further. I have expressed by willingness to participate with in this MedCab by putting aside past grievances and approach it with a reasonable level of maturity, common sense, and tact. I wonder if the rest are similarly willing?" (emphasise added)

Even at the MedCab's closing, no other party has responded to take a similar mindset before progressing further, which I do not feel is too much to ask for. When User:Russavia finally states his stand 45 days after the MedCab opened, I requested time to respond to his comments. He refuses to wait, gourding for my response several times, begins to spark several rounds of edit wars in the said article, and even proposed to close the MedCab prematurely precisely at a time when I was away for several days, which dihydrogen monoxide unfortunately agreed to. All facts on what actually transpired are clearly laid out for all to see, and cannot be ignored just because a group of fired-up and impatient individuals are hell bent on rushing the mediation process in order to impose their POV as soon as possible.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a good job of proving my point. Now, please cut the theatrics and state whether yes, you will agree or no, you will not agree to this mediation.

(And while I hate to get drawn into tangents, in the MedCab case you note, Russavia stated "I agree that I will participate and will respect whatever agreement comes of this effort", as long as all parties -- that means you -- agree to the same. You, on the other hand, only offered to "participate" and never said that you would respect the result of the mediation.) Jpatokal (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you have also done an excellent job of displaying the very attitude I was describing. I will decide to agree or disagree at a time I prefer as long as it is before the deadline in the respective space. Just in what position do you have to demand an immediate answer, and in such a condescending attitude? And since you enjoy getting drawn into tangents (as much as you pretend that you are not interested), may I just point out matter-of-factly that my choice of words are in direct relevance to what is required of me based on the context of the MedCab, which is to basically create a positive ambient space for constructive discussions. Constant rude interjections from you obviously do not help the situation, as well displayed both in the MedCab, in many previous "discussions", and right here in this discussion.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mediation is not valid if all parties do not agree to it, so any discussions are pointless until all parties agree. The two parties listed are Russavia and you, and Russavia has already agreed, so now we're waiting for you. As simple as that. Jpatokal (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you will have to wait for my response, as simply as that, without requiring any need to demand for a reaponse. Anyway, I unexpectedly had no internet excess for the past 40 hours, so perhaps fate destined a closure of this latest initiative. My full comments will follow below.--Huaiwei (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from dihydrogen monoxide

I am unsure as to where to put this, so feel free to move it as appropriate. I comment as per my involvement in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines. As a short summary of those events, I would agree somewhat that Huaiwei's behaviour has sometimes been annoying and has at times made it difficult for others to work collaboratively with him. However, MedCom does not focus on user disputes, rather on content. It is on that note that I would strongly suggest an emphasis be made on creating some sort of binding agreement, as the MedCab case linked above, and other discussions I have read, have shown that non-binding "consensus" formed in this area of dispute is rarely taken serious or adhered to for a meaningful length of time. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content, not conduct

I would like to remind our esteemed contributors that mediation is exclusively about content disputes. The conduct of users is explicitly out of scope, and complaints about the behavior of users, be they named users, anonymous "some users", collective users or even cabals, are not valid "Additional issues to be mediated". Jpatokal (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the timely reminder, for imagine my surprise when an "esteemed editor" like User:Vegaswikian can actually add an item complaining of WP:OWN being an issue here[1], despite this being an obvious behaviorial issue. If this is reflective of the ignorance shown towards the dispute resolution process in general, topped off by the obvious lack of understanding of the MedCab despite having gone through three runs of it, I believe I should be worried on the true sincerity of some members in wanting to work out a viable solution via dispute resolution channels. I would remove behavorial issues I have subsequently included (namely points #6 and #8) if inappiopriate ones (namely points #2 and #7) are reciprocally removed.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on this request for mediation which need urgent attention by all

Instead of disagreements arising out of what really is semantics, there are two sections in this request for mediation which need urgent attention, those being:

Involved parties
Parties' agreement to mediate

If you believe you are an involved party in regards to the matters raised in this request for mediation, then add your name to the Involved parties list. Huaiwei needn't add his name, as I did this when I started this mediation request.

If you add your name to the involved party list, and you agree to have this issue mediated, then add your name to the Parties' agreement to mediate list.

The mediator who takes this case, will know what is and isn't within the scope of this mediation, and if need be, I will directly ask of them to remove anything from the additional issues section which isn't related to article content before the mediation commences.

These issues have been ongoing for far too long now, and it is about time that a non-drawn out discussion takes place and concensus is found, so that we may all put this long, drawn out dispute behind us and get on with building WP.

Please do not make any comments directed to myself, or ask any questions of myself, in regards what I have just written, because I will not be answering anything else here, until such time as both sections in bold above have more than just my name written there. --Россавиа ^Диалог 17:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of issues on financial tables etc

I note that Butterfly0fdoom added an issue on the inclusion/non-inclusion of "financial and operational performance tables"[2]. These tables where recently removed by him unilaterally without discussion[3] in the article's talkpace, citing WP:NOT#STATS as the only reason. I restored the deleted information[4] asking for discussions to take place first, which has not been conducted in ernest. The issue does not meet the pre-mediation crtieria, and should therefore not be included in this mediation process.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have not even accepted the mediation process invalidates your objection. Fact is, WP:NOT states that irrelevant and non-notable statistic tables with no context are inappropriate. For that to be included in WP:NOT requires prior consensus in the community. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. You have not been able to show evidence that you have discusssed your viewpoint on this issue adequately via any channel, including even in article talkpages.--Huaiwei (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines, derived from general community consensus, exist for a reason: so that articles are uniform and encyclopedic. It is clear that some users feel it's encyclopedic when the majority (albeit often a silent majority as people are not likely to edits articles not within their personal interest or knowledge) disagrees and, unless a case can be established for an exception (such as the fleet lists for F9), then there is no basis for the inclusion. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

While I have not formally responded to this RfM within the deadline more due to technicalities than my personal choice (I was experiencing intermittent internet downtime for the past week or more, and had a 40-hour continous downtime which only ended about 5 hours ago), I was indeed hesitant in stating my choice for the following reasons:

I have found that the entire Wikipedia:Dispute resolution path taken on issues related to the said article to be a largely one-sided affair, with little effort made to engage those from one side of the argument (save for myself), as thou I was alone in taking the stance I have taken. This has resulted in my non-commitment to several past cases of MedCabs, which some interpret as signs of my unwilliness to mediate, and see it as a ticket to jump straight to Arbitration. I would note in particular, that in the most recent MedCab case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines), where it was drawn to a close by Russavia despite my requests for time to respond.--Huaiwei (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that there are two individuals who have added additional items for debate which are inappriopriate, and has refused to remove them despite me pointing this out. As in the above discussions, I have stated that Butterfly0fdoom's entry on an independent issue has never been adequately discussed, and should not be added to a Mediation case without going through proper dispute resolution channels. Both Jpatokal and I have pointed out that this should be about content disputes, not behavorial disputes. Vegaswikian's addition of WP:OWN concerns is clearly a behavorial issue.
While Russavia went around soliciting participation from others in this RfM, some of these members responded by initiating the latest round of discussions at Talk:Singapore_Airlines#Edit_warring. This suggests that the content under dispute has never been adequately discussed before reaching formal dispute resolution channels, given they were, up till that point, largely involved only three members, each unwilling to yield to the other's viewpoint. Progress in the lastest discussion has been encouraging, and I would prefer that it be given an opportunity to hammer out a solution. A new mediation request can always be called should these efforts fail to bear fruit.--Huaiwei (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia never solicited my participation on this RfM, your personal attack on Russavia is duly noted. You obviously were able to edit the mediation page as you added items in the list of additional items to be mediated; clearly, you were in a position to state whether or not you accept the mediation. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By solicitation, I refer to examples such as User_talk:Hroðulf#Singapore_Airlines_request_for_formal_mediation, where Hroðulf subsequently attempted to help resolve the problem by offering a solution at Talk:Singapore_Airlines#Edit_warring. No one is talking about you, and no one is making a personal attack against anyone else. I have stated quite clearly that I have hesitated to make a decision, and was unable to have internet access for 40 hours, including the last day before the closure of the seven day period. I hope you are not questioning my personal integrity this time, on top of wrongfully accusing me of making personal attacks against others.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never questioned your integrity. I was just noting that, when you were adding additional issues to me mediated, you could had signed your response simultaneously. Furthermore, while you think the issue I added may be an independent issue, but the Russavia clearly thought that Singapore Airlines Fleet was related to the dispute. As he didn't insert the dispute regarding the SQ fleet page, I did so in order that Russavia's inclusion of the SQ fleet page as an involved article was not out of context. As for the financial tables, see above. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So to make a long story short, Huaiwei, your choice was No, you do not agree to mediation. Is that correct? If I am mistaken, and you in fact would have said "Yes" if not only for that terribly inconvenient internet outage, how about I file a new, identical request and you can sign up to that? Jpatokal (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to respond to non-constructive and purely confrontational and inflammatory comments such as the one above.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? If you were willing to agree to the mediation if not only for your internet outage, I would be glad to help you by filing a new mediation request. Do you wish me to do so? Jpatokal (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to H20, MedCom is for content disputes, but, in my opinion, the dispute stems beyond content issues. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]