Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/PT and WCityMike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] PT and WCityMike


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 00:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason given for closure was: Closed due to withdrawal of parties.
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

[edit] Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

[edit] Issues to be mediated

I withdraw my claim on this issue. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

  • Given the late hour in which this was brought, I respectfully request of the MedCom 24 hours' time to respond, specifically with regards to what issues I myself seek mediation for. I may not need the full 24 hours, depending on workload and other personal factors. — Mike (talk • contribs) 04:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Mike... I understand that mediations take a while, but I have been doing some thinking, and I have some ideas on something to bridge this gap. I took the first step today, on the MfDs. I have more, but only if you're open to discussion. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • PT, I'm definitely open to coming to a peace with you — but I would feel more comfortable if we did it in the context of the mediation process. I do not believe the process of mediation leaves any blemish on either of our characters or reputations — please correct me if I'm wrong, Essjay. I mean this with absolutely no rancor or ill will — but I just think our temperments do not mix well when attempting to make peace on our own, and I think we have the best chance of success when a third party is helping guide the resolution of our dispute. — Mike (talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand that. I will wait for these mediators to get a hold of us (i.e. making an edit to this page, which is on both our watchlists, I assume?). PT (s-s-s-s) 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as you're willing to participate in medaition, you can have as long as you like. What we're concerned about at this point is getting both parties in agreement to have a mediation; there will be plenty of time after the case is accepted to set everything out exactly as you want it. Essjay (Talk) 10:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed willing; thanks. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the comments Parsssseltongue has made on my talk page to provide specific detail, Parsssseltongue seems to believe that I have:

  • personally attacked him — by, among other things:
    • pointing out personal interactions and personal facts about him (i.e. his self-identification as inclusionist) during an MfD debate,
    • posting a rebuttal essay to the essay up for MfD, and
    • calling his actions uncivil;
  • continuously targeted his articles for deletion;
  • harrassed him;
  • vote-canvassed;
  • been sarcastic;
  • been snarky;
  • antagonized him and MikeWazowski;
  • been unreal with him;
  • used other people's arguments about my behavior to then accuse them of the same thing;
  • used arguments from personal incredulity, 'ad hominem' attacks, straw man arguments, and other logical fallacies;
  • skated on a fine line of policy;
  • wrote an essay in the AfD and a new essay on Wikipedia when a simple "delete" vote would have sufficed; and
  • consistently jumped to the worst possible scenario.

I am mostly here not to resolve issues of my own, but to participate willingly in the dispute resolution process initiated at Parsssseltongue's behest. Since the matter has been brought, however, I would seek clarification as to a third party's opinions regarding Parsssseltongue's concerns, and, also, additionally:

  • Whether this talk page section demonstrates incivility and personal attack on the part of Parsssseltongue, and if so, what course can be charted to prevent same from recurring both in interactions with me and others; and
  • Whether Wikipedia:Don't hold a grudge can validly be considered an attack page given the level of detail in which it mirrors the aforementioned talk page section, despite the fact that it does not name me personally (link to essay in state it was at at the time of MfD nomination). — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accepted.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 15:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take on this case, if you both are willing. (Notifying on talk pages as well) -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — Mike (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to list it as assigned on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Open Tasks if both parties agree to your mediating it. Essjay (Talk) 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Private or Public Mediation

Due to the severity of claiming personal attacks, I highly recommend private mediation through e-mail. However, if the two of you would prefer public mediation continued here, please feel free to let me know. -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /14:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Private mediation's fine with me. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not want private mediation, I do not want to go through e-mail. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What, ^demon, do you feel are the possible negative effects of public mediation? I'm most likely willing to proceed with public mediation per PT's request but would appreciate insight into your concerns. — Mike (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just felt that since you both were claiming personal attacks, it was a situation better suited for a private scenario, such as e-mail. However, per PT's request, and Mike's consention to it, we can proceed with public mediation. I have no preference, whatever suits the two of you best and would be the best avenue to settle this dispute. -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /22:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As I will discuss later during mediation, I have different viewpoints about this now than when I first filed for mediation, and although I feel this process needs to be seen through all the way, I have much more positive feelings about the hope for a peaceful resolution. That, coupled with my wish to stay as anonymous as possible while on Wiki, is why I opt for a public mediation as opposed to something where I would need to provide email info. PT (s-s-s-s) 02:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, and let's begin

I would like to first commend you both. After rereading everything you both brought to the table, it has become even more apparent to me that this issue has been quite volatile at times. However, you both are showing a great deal of maturity about this issue, and in taking mediation so calmly and cooperatively, I believe we can bring this matter to a successful conclusion, to the agreement of both of you. Now, this all being said, let's stop beating around the bush and get to the matter at hand.

You have both claimed personal attacks on one another. After reading the material you provided, I can see that this is a very true claim for both parties. There were periods of time where neither of you were very civil, and you both obviously lost your cool at some point. The start of this all appears to have been several essays written by PT, which Mike did not agree with. Mike subsequently voiced his concerns on the respective MfD pages, to which PT responded. Am I seeing this right? -^demon[yell at me] 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Response/WCityMike's Take on History of Matter

The short version (since I have to wake up in less than six hours) is that it begins with the speedy deletion of Catorce (relevant portion of speedy delete log), which prompted User talk:WCityMike/Archives - AfD Stuff#Catorce. It then continued with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brodie Foster Hubbard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outlaw indie rock, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad. Resulting talk page discussion at User talk:WCityMike/Archives - AfD Stuff#my contributions.

A number of weeks later, I decided to goof around and see what was in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. The top result on the page was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be lazy. I felt that the way it was phrased, and the shortcuts it employed, offered potentially major problems (and indeed, after being employed, already had directed a few offended individuals to the AfD in question), and so wrote a (to me) civil but rather detailed response, which can be viewed in the MfD in question. PT and I discussed my vote at User talk:WCityMike#my next essay: don't hold a wiki-grudge. Following the discussion, he wrote another essay which, feeling it was a personal attack, I proceeded to nom at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't hold a grudge.

On a separate note, I don't wish to claim sainthood, ^demon — I know I've certainly been incivil on Wikipedia, although I think I've gotten better. But, frankly, I'd appreciate a third-party perspective as to where I was incivil in my dialogue with PT, because, while I don't claim sainthood, I don't think I see any incivility m'self. — Mike 04:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thurs AM clarification: in the material I've just provided to you, there was most definitely incivility on my part — or at least a hefty dose of sarcasm in the AfD "vote." I think I remained civil in the cited talk pages, though, so I'm curious as to where you felt I was incivil or had personally attacked PT in my private exchanges with him. — Mike 14:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I had already found a lot of those archives and read through them, trying to see if there was anything further in this dispute I needed to know before I continued. That's where I was drawing the basis of my claims, and I'm sorry for not clarifying that from the outset. -^demon[yell at me] 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
PT's Take on History of Matter

I was working on articles about notable performers in my area. One article was about a group who had previously written their own joke version of a Wiki article on themselves that had been deleted. I tried to explain that despite their previous vanity article, I was writing a new article with actual information and an NPOV. It was speedily deleted. Mike then looked up my other contributions on Wikipedia and put them ALL up for deletion. He next put up all my essays for deletion.

I believe Mike has had a very bad attitude in his communications with me. He alternates his approach with a phony air of politeness and citing WP policies, then violating them with his own incivil behavior.

I looked into Mike's dealings with other editors, and have found they have had similar experiences. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned earlier that you had an interesting idea of how to bridge this gap between you both. I would be interested in hearing it. -^demon[yell at me] 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should co-author some essays together. Working on a project together might help us find our similarities, and create some goodwill between us. I have some topics in mind, Also, maybe instead of putting my contributions up for deletion, he could help me figure out ways to assert notability, if I haven't already. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a very good idea to me, and I could see how that would help bridge the gap. Mike? -^demon[yell at me] 19:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm genuinely sorry, but this is not a way in which I can meet you halfway. I'm not interested in co-authoring essays with PT. These are the problems as I see it with that proposal. First, I see essays as more an expression of a singular opinion. If it's placed in Wikipedia namespace as opposed to userspace, it's then free for people to further edit to refine the principles involved, but at least as how I attack the concept, essays aren't originally co-authored. I realize other people approach essay creation differently. Wikipedia is cooperative editing, and I function well at that, but in terms of cooperative authoring, I don't feel that's a talent of mine. Second, look at the discussion we've just had on our talk pages. I haven't stated it this bluntly yet because I didn't want to come across inflammatorily, but I don't feel I was treated well at all, and I think the comments made were often outrageous. Someone who expresses their disagreement like that ... is not someone I want to cooperate with on a project on Wikipedia. Finally, I may take opposing positions to PT in the future when it comes to AfDs, and I still feel the articles I nominated didn't meet notability standards. As I explained then, he shouldn't be taking it personally — none of us own our contributions here. I didn't target him specifically in the past (my "looking for patterns," as I put it then, was nothing personal — WP:STALK indicates harassment "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason"), and I'm not going to target him specifically in the future — but I can't promise to help him assert notability if I don't think the article's subject itself is notable. I have certainly withdrawn nominations before and instead helped an article when my understanding of the subject's notability improved — I point you to Paul H. Carr and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul H. Carr — and that may happen in the future, in interactions with PT or with other individuals. But that's all going to depend on whatever specific issue is at hand at the time, and it's not something I can make a blanket agreement on now. — Mike 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That was my idea. You have shot it down. Now what? PT (s-s-s-s) 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
^demon, what's your take on where we should go next? — Mike 21:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of the Two Essays

I had Essjay restore the two essays in question. I believe our next course of action could be discussing these two essays, which apparently were the catylst that set off this heated debate, and led to the RFM. -^demon[yell at me] 17:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Don't be lazy
  • Wikipedia:Don't hold a grudge
    • Sounds fine to me. I spoke to them in the second paragraph of "Response/WCityMike's Take on History of Matter" above — anything I should elucidate on? Do you want a certain structure to our discussion? — Mike 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I really don't feel that the LAZY essay is an issue now. Everything of substance has been restored at WP:OSTRICH. As for grudge, that essay was spawned from Mike's behavior towards me. I stand by everything I said in it, and I think it is telling that his first action when coming across it was to put it up for deletion. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I could reply to this, but then the discussion is bound to start getting into a nonproductive state. I'll wait for ^demon to take some action as to where we go from here. — Mike 19:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Mike has apparently "retired" from WP. I was looking forward to seeing this mediation through, but he has left over an unrelated issue, so I guess we're done? I'm sorry, ^demon. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for both of your efforts, and I'm sorry we couldn't see this mediation through. Mike, I hope you'll return to Wikipedia someday. You're a valuable asset. -^demon[yell at me] 18:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)