Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/PT and WCityMike

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed User dSgaUUTyFy (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 20 July 2006 (→‎Thanks, and let's begin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PT and WCityMike

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:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Issues to be mediated

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:

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.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accepted.

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

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)[reply]

Agreed. — Mike (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sure. Private mediation's fine with me. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. It was so egregiously a violation of multiple guidelines that I wrote a rather strong response, visible in the thread. 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/PT_and_WCityMike&oldid=64794976"