User talk:GRMule/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Repeated Vandalism by EricV89

EricV89 continues to vandalize this page, as well as the mediation request. If this behavior persists, I have no choice but to seek arbitration. I am trying to resolve this issue like an adult, and that is obviously not going to be possible when dealing with this user. A real shame.

EricV89, if you vandalize my page or the mediation request one more time, I will have no choice but to report you to the admin board without any further possibility for discussion. -- Forridean ^(T/C) 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPA & the Attack of the Deletionists!

Please do not continue to remove your listing as a WP:SPA account. You have made very few edits outside of the topic which qualifies you as this, and further removal of of this notification will result in me reporting you to WP:3RRN and your blocking for violation of WP:3RR. Again, do not remove this tag. --Seascic ^T/_C 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page: Need to stop threatening me, and stop putting the tag on me to begin with. I am not a SPA, no matter how badly you wish it to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forridean (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Seascic. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --eric (mailbox) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you have not versed yourself with the situation, and instead fired off comments that are misinformed. I am not insulting anyone, I am being insulted, and the issue is being RfC'd. Forridean 13:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling a editor "a rabid deletionist, and a bully." is considored an attack on their character. Resist from using derogatorative terms or words that are directed at the editor. This is strictly forbidden. --eric (mailbox) 15:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you to leave me alone, and butt out of this issue. It does not concern you, you are not being helpful, you're just telling me what to do - not your place. I do not wish to converse with you on this subject from this point forward. Stop editing my contribs, stop posting on my talk page, seriously, back away. You are not helping. Forridean 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no choice but to ask for mediation. This issue has gotten out of hand, and I am sick of battling with these two. All I tried to do was weigh in on an AfD, and now I have to deal with these two deletionists targeting me with personal attacks. Enough is enough. Here is the related talk page: User_talk:Seascic#WP:SPA_.26_Threatening_me, and here is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Astro_empires Forridean 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You both need to step back

Please stay off Eric's talk page for the next 24 hours; if he removes his name from the MedCab case, don't edit war to put it back for 24 hours; and if he leave another message on your talk page, you can just remove it with no comment. I am leaving a similar message at Eric's talk page. The first step in dispute resolution is to stop escalating. --barneca (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If Eric doesn't want to go to MedCab, he doesn't have to. Would you like an uninvolved 3rd party to see what your argument is about, do you want to drop it, or do you plan to pursue another method of dispute resolution? I'm perfectly happy either way, but edit warring on each other's talk pages and edit warring to re-add someone to a MedCab case when they don't want to be in it isn't going to solve anything. --barneca (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, for the record, I have been asking him to stop this silly battle for the entire duration. Yes I would like an uninvolved party to step in and help me sort this out. I am getting very frustrated by Eric's attitude and unwillingness to discuss this like an adult. That was my entire intention in filing for informal mediation. I -do not want to argue with people-. Eric's user page states that he is willing to resolve conflict civilly, I have witnessed anything BUT civility. The threats, the edit war, the accusations.... enough is enough. -- Forridean ^(T/C) 00:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I read the discussion that you had with Eric, and it seems to me that the default is to take his side? This is baffling. I am the one who is trying to use the proper processes here. He is leaving threats, refusing to discuss, and generally being a dick. Please, do look in to this, and discover that I have not done anything to warrant a block. I asked Eric to keep away from me, then he rolls out this whole misspelled ignore template and tries to pretend as though it is me who is being bothersome. He approached me, he escalated the argument by being snide, and he is not willing to compromise or discuss, whereas I am. -- Forridean ^(T/C) 01:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the default is not to take his side. I asked him the same questions I asked you, he indicated he didn't want my input, and I said OK. If you had answered earlier, I'd tell you what I'm telling you now; if he posts to your user page today, I'll block him. You have to understand that no one except you two know what the conflict was about; I have no idea who did what when. I saw two users who were edit warring with each other on two talk pages and a MedCab page; no matter what's going on, that isn't helpful.

I'll look into your conflict today; please be a bit patient, I'm juggling some other things in real life. All I ask is that you two avoid each other until I can figure out what's going on. --barneca (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, an outside view of your conflict yesterday

Forridean asked me to review the situation. This is not MedCab related, as I'm not involved in MedCab, just an outside view from someone who noticed the fuss.

IMHO, this is a classic case of mutual, incremental escalation.

• Seascic probably went too far in using the SPA tag in the AFD discussion; I doubt he violated policy, and even if he did it's a minor infraction, but there is nothing "suspicious" about an account that's been around for 9 months, making half a dozen edits, finding an AFD discussion that matters to them and commenting. Let's save the SPA tag for more blatant meatpuppeting and accounts clearly created for the discussion only, not just to imply there's something wrong with relative newbies commenting at an AFD.
• Seascic and Forridean both escalated by edit warring on the tag; both should have known better
• Forridean should not have used the term "rabid deletionist" or "bully"; loaded terms guaranteed to fire up the other side
• EricV89 and Seascic didn't need to bring out the NPA guns for a pretty minor example of an attack; Forridean was subjected to about that same level of attack at the AFD
• Forridean needs to realize that one templated warning on his talk page is not an insult to his character, and could have just removed the notice with "I disagree" and let it die
• EricV89 needs to realize that if he's going to get involved in a conflict, it's no good to say you want nothing to do with one of the people in the conflict. Dropping a template on someone's talk page involves you, and if you don't want to discuss with someone, don't drop the template in the first place
• EricV89, your "you are blocked to me" template is aggressive, and the only conceivable response to it is to be offended. Please don't use it anymore.
• EricV89 and Forridean, once a discussion begins, communicating by placing rapidly escalating templates on each others talk pages looks, from outside, pretty childish.
• Forridean, when someone asks you to stay off their talk page, then stay off their talk page. If you aren't willing to drop things, do something else in WP:DR, but it's pretty widely accepted that it's unproductive to post to someone's talk page when you know you're not welcome
• Forridean, going to MedCab over this was a bit over the top (as was threatening "arbitration", although you may or may not have known what that means here); WP:WQA would have been more appropriate, or some other lower-level method in WP:DR, as EricV89 told you
• Forridean and EricV89, edit warring over including EricV89's name in the MedCab case was silly, but by this time each of you felt aggrieved due to the previous arguments. For the record, I think Forridean has a right to make whatever report he wants to, and EricV89 should not have removed his own name; you're welcome to ignore MedCab if you don't want to participate, but you don't have the right to alter someone else's report. Having your name on there in no way obligated you to participate. A simple "I decline to participate" on the page from you would have been better.

So, enough blame to go around. Sorry if this looks wishywashy, and doesn't find a single culprit, but this is what usually happens in a dispute; everyone is quick to see mistakes in other people's behavior, and blinded to their own unneseccary esclations. I hope this outside opinion was useful.

If you have any comments, feel free to make them here, or on my talk page. If tempers are still raw, it might be best if no one posted on anyone else's talk page for a bit, but since that's what talk pages are for, if anyone wants to make polite, non-argumentative comments on someone else's talk page, I'm not going to try to prevent it. Just be extra careful to be civil to one another, so no one gets blocked and everyone can go back to whatever they were doing. --barneca (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was looking for, intervention of an outside party to enumerate not only where the other two went wrong, but were I went wrong as well. I could do without the mediation now, not that it accomplished anything anyway. Thank you very much for your time and intervention! -- Forridean ^(T/C) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)