Let's see if we can get something of a timeline here:
- 15:40:40 - The question is asked.
- 16:34:23 - Mark posts his answer.
- 16:58:39 - You post your answer.
From here on I'll split the timeline to the two answers, starting with Mark's:
- 18:27:19 - "-1 for answer on non-asked by OP question. Do not consider yourself smarter than others" - Comment by you on Mark's answer.
- 18:38:42 - "When I said about non-answered, I had in mind Mercurial recommendation only. Because rest is just my stolen and expanded correct answer"
- 18:44:13 - Mark responds to your comment with "Unlike others here, I provided a solution with svn and then suggested an alternative.".
- 18:48:59 - Mark expands his answer a little bit.
- 18:50:33 - Mark informs you of his edit with this comment: "@LazyBadger - Happy now? I actually answer the specific question asked, along with the other suggestions for alternative solutions."
- 18:53:30 - Another user steps in, informing you that Mark's answer is actually earlier than yours.
- 19:00:29 - You post this meta question.
- 19:06:22 - I check to see what the heck is going on, and inform you that you can see the actual timelines by hovering over "x hours ago".
- 19:14:33 - You apologize to Mark for accusing him of stealing your answer with this comment: "@MarkBooth - I'm sorry, you did not steal my answer. It is incomprehensible for me confusion in the update-interface of the page"
And now let's see what has been happening on your answer:
- 18:02:34 - Mark, oblivious of what would follow, graciously fixes grammar mistakes in your answer.
- 18:29:35 - "-1 for answer on non-asked by OP question. Do not consider yourself smarter than others." - Mark posts this comment, obviously referencing your comment in his answer, a couple of minutes earlier.
Lastly, while all these where taking place someone flagged every comment that was addressed to you as "rude/offensive". Then you flagged two answers on the same question for moderation attention, which I declined as "flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer" - that's what down votes are for.
Now that we reconstructed the timeline, I feel extremely confident that Mark did not do anything wrong here. He improved your answer, even though it was a competing later answer that re-iterated his own answer, and even expanded his own answer after you falsely accused him of stealing it from you.
You, on the other hand, really need to calm down. You accused another user of stealing you answer, although you never adequately checked to see if your answer was actually earlier, posted some rather snarky comments, flagged perfectly valid competing answers and I'm pretty sure that you were the one flagging almost every comment that was addressed to you, although people where generally being nice and none of the flagged comments was either rude or offensive.
The culmination of course is this Meta question, where you ask us to intervene for a single down vote. I'll recognize that you apologized to Mark after you found out you were in the wrong, however your overall behavior is unacceptable.
You need to be nice(r):
Civility is required at all times; rudeness will not be tolerated.
Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you. We’re all here to learn together. Be tolerant of others who may not know everything you know. Bring your sense of humor.
Above all, be honest. If you see misinformation, vote it down. Add comments indicating what, specifically, is wrong. Provide better answers of your own. Best of all — edit and improve the existing questions and answers!
I appreciate your passion, however the hostility you displayed today was both unwarranted and nonsensical, and our community has a very low tolerance threshold for such behaviours.
Calm down and be nice.