Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 PT and Marcus22

Mediation Case: PT and Marcus22
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: PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 16:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * User_talk:Marcus22 and User_talk:Parsssseltongue


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Marcus22 and User:Parsssseltongue


 * What's going on?
 * Marcus left a "be civil" message on my talk page. The only interaction we'd had was on the AfD for They Shoot Horses Don't They, so I left Marcus a message on his/her talk page letting him/her know I had responded on my talk page. He/she erased the message I left on his/her talk page and has not replied to mine. According to Wikipedia talk page guidelines, while this is a hostile act, so is reverting such changes, and dispute resolution was one of the steps reccomended to take next.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like an answer as to why the comment was left, and an apology if it is deemed to have been inappropriate.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * No discretion needed, just come to my talk page.

Mediator response
I've looked at both sides of the story through the diffs. I think it's a common misunderstanding, Marcus thought PT was patronizing him through his comment invoking WP:OSTRICH, and PT feels that Marcus deleting his comments from Marcus' talk page is a hostile action. Honestly, I think this is a misunderstanding. PT, whether it was your intent or not, what you said could have been construed as patronizing. Marcus, by not responding, PT felt that you were being hostile to him, but I don't think his intent was to be patronizing to you initally, perhaps that's the way it came across. I know I may or may not have read it that way depending on what kind of day I had.

I would suggest that both of you keep not only the trifecta, but WP:BOLD, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BITE in mind in the future, otherwise, I don't see much else that needs to be addressed. I just chalk it up to a misunderstanding and that's all.

I'll leave the case open until this time tomorrow, if there's nothing else in these regards, I'll close the case successfully. CQJ 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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



Discussion

 * The problem, as I see it now, is that I didn't recall making THIS edit on Marcus's page. Then, he removed it. So, when he posted the comment about being civil, I had no memory of the supposedly incivil comment, nor any evidence of it looking at his talk page in its current revision status at the time. I thought the only interaction we'd had was on the AfD. Marcus needs to learn to stop blanking his talk page if he/she disagrees with the discussion on it, or I forsee more problems like this in his/her future. I appreciate the mediator's comments and excuse of my behavior (civil or otherwise), but I respectfully disagree that Marcus's actions fall under WP:BITE. I think I have been around long enough to know what I'm doing, it's just a question of whether or not what I am doing is "right." PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not something that I can decide. My position as an informal mediator is to identify where the dispute is and to assist you through the dispute.  I'm sure of your understanding of Wikipedia policy and its implementation (after reviewing your edit count), but my invoking of WP:BITE mainly dealt with the timeframe you've been involved with the project, not your edit count (Marcus has a year and a half here, you have several months). I think the entire situation is a misunderstanding - from your comment to Marcus deemed as patronizing, to his blanking his talk page so one couldn't follow the statements/arguments.  Generally, I think that editors ought to use archival instead of blanking comments, however, I don't think that the blanking was malicious or hostile in intent. CQJ 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, as far as the timeframe. I would really like Marcus to chime in here, too, so we could get his/her perspective. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm involved in a war and I didnt even know!! What happened: PT made a comment I found patronising and I replied.  And for me that was that.  He then replied again and I just let it drop. Theres better things to do on Wiki and in life than bicker!  Next thing I find this...!!!  PT FYI I regularly remove comments from my talk page if they relate to a matter I consider done and dusted.  Thats just the way I use my talk page and it's nothing personal.  Sorry if you felt it was.  But it wasnt.  CQJ, happy with your comments.  Its finished with (again) as far as I am concerned.  regards Marcus22 08:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "finished with.". You violated a basic principle of Wikipedia etiquette. I don't appreciate your tone on my talk page, and I don't appreciate you erasing comments, which further confused the dialogue. I am not satisfied that you have made amends. PT ( s-s-s-s ) 16:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm. I'd be careful stating who's doing the violating here, honestly. You could read your own comment at Marcus' talk page as patronizing and using an unappreciative tone, given the right slant on it. Whether you appreciate the "erasing of comments" or not, I don't find anything malicious or hostile in that act.  I personally don't agree with it, but if that's the way that Marcus operates, then that's the way he operates his talk page, and by my interpretation of the talk page guidelines, that is permitted.  The blanking rule generally comes into play when vandalism or 3rr warnings are blanked in a hostile act, indicating non-compliance.  I think by Marcus coming here and explaining himself, he's obviously demonstrated that he wasn't engaged in a hostile act at the time.
 * There's a rule here called WP:IAR called Ignore All Rules - which basically states that if an action is going to be contrary to a rule, yet improves the quality of an article (or the quality of life) on Wikipedia, the action can be taken if it is justifiable. Once again, I think this was a simple misunderstanding, which happens a lot on Wikipedia, especially when one can't determine facial expression or tone in voice in posting.  I've asked Marcus to remember to follow WP:BITE and for both of you to check up on WP:CIVIL for future reference.
 * Further, Marcus did take time out of his editing to come here and take a look at your concerns, apologize to you, and explain that it's not anything personal for his removal of your comments from his talk page as he considered the issue dead in the water. With that said, I'm not sure what else you intend to accomplish here or what other amends need be made for you to be satisfied.  Like I've said before, it sounds like this is a very simple, minor misunderstanding between two editors with good edit records and good contributions to be made.  CQJ 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked for an apology to be made. I'm not going to get one, so go ahead and close this informal mediation out. Thank you for your time. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can close for me too CQJ. Polite and fair job done.  Marcus22 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)