User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 101

Here are the archives of specific matters. These are not necessarily "dead", and may be added to.

review of your block at ani

By my count, five uninvolved editors have reservations, and two support. I'm rather surprised it's still an indef. Any thoughts? 86.44.20.40 (talk)

LessHeardvanU, this ip is ranting back on Collectonian's talk page in Abtract's defense to the point where even I am beginning to suspect that it is Abtract himself. I didn't think of it at first, until Collectonian brought it up on WP:AN/I. Care to look into this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just found out that this is a hopping ip, see also 86.44.28.52 and 86.44.28.16. The behaviour is similar indeed. And it is odd that the anon defends Abtract with vigor. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"ranting"? :)

It's only odd that I "defend" Abtract (I wouldn't describe it as that, exactly, i am in fact critical of all three parties) from your POV. A number of editors have looked at the history of interaction between the three of you and have come to roughly similar views to my own.

I am allocated an IP and i edit under it. I've never deliberately abandoned an IP nor edited from more than one account at a time nor sought in any way to hide the history of my editing. Therefore I find your references to hopping offensive, please refrain. Thanks. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re Abtract

I don't understand why the block duration was changed. I read the comments on User talk:Abtract but I don't see anything in regards to a "last chance" or the sort. How come? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Settled. Though I can only wholeheartedly agree if Abtract receives a very, very last warning. Should there be an instance of him editing a page that he has never involved himself with, well, immediate blocking will do. I honestly can not stand this user's cyber-stalking and I'm sure Col thinks the same. So, can you convey that warning? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You might need to nudge both S and C. If they both want to have any chance of having full community support, they need to look at the second paragraph of A's proposal on his talk page, and consider quickly coming to some sort of explicit agreement there. After that, if he requests to be unblocked on the basis he will comply with the agreement, then it probably should be granted. It's the quickest and most effective way of resolving this dispute for once and for all, as whomever (of the 3 editors) violates the agreement will be sanctioned or blocked. In the absence of an explicit agreement there (because, S, C or A are unwilling to comply), the alternative is not just time-consuming, but will probably leave this dispute unresolved for more time than is necessary. Anyway, that concludes my view as a complete third party. I also think you've handled this situation reasonably well so far, especially in your communications with both parties. :) Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's okay. And you're very welcome. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If a repeat incident happens, I think you'll understand why Collectonian would need to be blocked for edit-warring now. Anyway, Abtract has been unblocked so the matter is at that for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

C has basically refused to close that discussion without forcing a restraining order on Abtract (despite explaining why this is not possible), and has reverted me twice already in closing the ANI discussion. I think it'd be better if a sysop closed it if reverted again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract is stalking again

I'm sorry to have to bother you, but as the one who originally indef blocked Abtract and was involved in his last AN/I, I hoped you might be able to offer some kind of help. Despite all the AN/Is, the blocks, etc, Abtract has once again started to stalk and harass me. He left a snarky "goodbye" on my talk pages a few days ago when he made a big show of leaving Wikipedia to concentrate on his studies[1] (now obviously a false claim). He began making edits after me any time I worked on the Oxford Scientific Films article (which he created solely because it was on my list of articles to create and directly related to Meerkat Manor which is the set of articles I am most involved with and most proud of). When he did his goodbye thing, he blanked the article along with some of his talk pages to delete them, saying to "delete page please"[2] so I tagged for CSD (Author Deletion)[3]. Within minutes, he reverted, claiming it was a mistake[4]. So I attempted to followed JHunterJ's advice[5], I began editing this article the same as I would had planned to created it, doing massive amounts of clean up, removing the factual errors and bad writing, expanding it, etc. Whenever I had an editing session, Abtract would pop in to make minor edits, telling me in one edit summary after I reverted his inappropriate changing of the date format because its a British company to "get away woman."[6]. Returning fully to his older behavior of stalking and harassing, he began watching my contribs again. He filed a falsified 3RR report against me for a disagreement at InuYasha, claiming I had done four reverts when there were three and then both I and the other editor stopped to discuss on my talk and take the project for a discussion.[7]. As he has never edited that article, the only way he would even know about this is if he was continuing his stalking for the purposes of finding ways to continue to harass me.

At this point, I'm wondering if there is nothing that Wikipedia's admins and/or sysops are going to do about this kind of behavior, which I frankly find to be disturbing and psychotic. In real life, he'd already be behind bars, or at least under a restraining order. Instead, he is continued to allowed to continue acting like this, despite his eight blocks. His last block was removed upon his making an agreement, which he is now breaking again because JHunterJ allowed him to back out of it, despite it being a condition of the block being lifted. Can you do anything to help here? Is yet another AN/I in order, or will it just result in his again being giving a virtual slap on the hand and allowed to continue acting in such an disturbing fashion? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really a winner...

Looking at it in parts:

The agreement was designed to be 'terminatable'. *grumbling* It appears to have been done here, here and finally here. (But I'm very annoyed that JHunterJ failed to notify me of the discussion or the result - not sure if he mentioned it to you.) Collectonian (Co) really should've signed that agreement but refused to do so, and all I can do is sigh at the moment because I do see part of the complaint above misrepresented and Abtract (Ab) is partially off the hook.

This revert by Co wasn't helpful - if it was just correcting the date, a partial revert was all that was needed. The full revert of the history with "will fix rest up in a minute" isn't going to fly and appears as a WP:OWN problem (and of course, it will escalate the situation). Predictably, Ab reverted here - his "get away woman" comment in the edit summary would surely escalate this further. I won't be surprised if he's going to say that he intended it to mean 'don't revert in full then - I spent my time contributing'. That's the part he's off the hook.

Ab filed a 3RR report on Co, where he was not involved in the dispute. The reverts on the 3RR report did show edit-warring - both Michael and Co were involved and Stifle protected the page (see [8]). But as Co points out, civil discussion was already under way on the issue at Co's talk page prior to the 3RR being filed. It's one thing to genuinely file a report as an uninvolved editor in a dispute, but it's another when you've been repeatedly told to stay away from each other. Why file the 3RR report despite being in the latter category? The harassment claims are not meritless here. As there was clearly editwarring, I don't think an indef block will be supported, but it's time for sanctions. 15:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There were so many drama invitations in this case, primarily though, brought on by Collectonian's refusal to sign the agreement. Collectonian wants nothing less than Abtract to stop. It goes both ways. Whether Abtract created the article because it was on Collectonian's to-do list or because he wanted to remains to be seen. I suggest the following remedies to be enacted.

• Should, in the opinion of any administrator, Abtract make any edit which constitutes harassment of Collectonian, he may be briefly blocked, for up to 3 months in the event of repeat offenses. Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include harassment of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators.
• If Collectonian has made an edit in any article, Abtract is prohibited from reverting it in full or part. (Note: if the edit was reverted in part by editor X and it was reinserted in part by an editor other than Collectonian, Abtract may revert that part.)
• If Abtract has made an edit in an article, Collectonian is prohibited from reverting it in full or part. (Note: if the edit was reverted in part by editor X and it was reinserted in part by an editor other than Abtract, Collectonian may revert that part.)
• Should a user violate these 2 restrictions, they may be blocked for up to 1 week in the event of repeated violations.
• Both users are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

The alternative to the above set of remedies is this one:

• Abtract and Collectonian are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either user violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.)
• Both users are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

I think that's about it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that there are many eyes looking at this. I have to say, the alternative remedy seems really appealing. That's from someone on the outside, though, and it may not be fair to the editors involved in the dispute. It may also be the easy way out - and what fun would that be? ;) I definitly think that disallowing all interaction would solve the problem, and a lot of good faith to say that this isn't necessary has already been expounded.

I question that perhaps I am assuming too much good faith in Abtract, but I also feel like the [recent] harrassment and discussion of 'being behind bars' has been played up somewhat by Collectonian. Granted, though, there definitly has been some clear incivility on Abtract's part. I want to avoid taking sides as much as possible, but I feel I should at least say what I am thinking, so as to be completely truthful.

Regardless, whatever we can do to resolve this ongoing dispute is good; please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance. -- Natalya 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

point the "clear incivility" please Natalya. Abtract (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist mentioned it above, but the "Get away woman" in your edit summary here was pretty uncivil. Even if you felt the need to express that thought, I'm sure there are many nicer ways to put it. -- Natalya 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the full edit summary was talk about "sledgehammer to crack a nut" ... the date is in the wrong format so you revert the whole lot? Get away woman. which imho is very inoccuous. Would "get away man?" be clear incivility to a male editor? I think not.Abtract (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it is a play up, as I have seriously looked into contacting the police about this long term harassment, which meets every summary of what internet stalking is that I have read and falls well within Texas' cyberstalking laws. Just because he has limited it to this site does not make it any less disturbing, harassing, or upsetting. However, I keep trying to have faith that Wikipedia's administrators will actually do something to stop this instead of continuing to allow this. All I have ever asked in this whole mess is that someone stop him because he is obviously incapable of stopping himself, despite various promises to do so and his so called "leaving". Other editors should not have to deal with this kind of on-going harassment nor stalking. Sometimes I wonder if ED's page on wikistalking is correct and the only real solution is to give up the fight and run away, delete your Wikipedia account and let the stalker win, because Wikipedia will never really take actions to stop such people. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and I don't mean to lessen your concerns over stalking, which is indeed a serious issue. -- Natalya

Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(to Ncmvocalist's suggestion) I would make Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) party to this also, as we may as well encompass all the players, substituting his name for Collectonian. I prefer the first raft, amended if required in the light of reasonable responses, than the second. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest simplifying the remedy to:

• Abtract cannot edit a non-talk page whose most recent editor is Collectonian or Sesshomaru.
• Collectonian cannot edit a non-talk page whose most recent editor is Abtract.
• Sesshomaru cannot edit a non-talk page whose most recent editor is Abtract.
• As desired, Abtract, Collectonian, and Sesshomaru can add or remove instructions from their own user talk pages indicating whether they would permit any of the other two to edit the talk page, and they all abide by those permissions.

(Penalties as above).

Sorry for the annoyance mentioned above; I didn't realize interested groups wouldn't be watching the relevant page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see these remedies being able to avoid some of the editor warring, but I don't know if it would solve any issues of harassment going on. The more I think about it, although it's quite drastic, not allowing any contact between Abtract and Collectonian (or, Abtract and Collectonian/Sesshomaru) would certainly solve the problems. Yes, it would hinder their editing, but it would remove all possibilities for harassment. -- Natalya 18:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(to JHunterJ) I feel it is too narrow, and allows any party to revert etc. the other providing there is an intervening contribution by a third party - I might suggest that if we add major after "most recent" then we get the flavour of stopping any one editor from interfering with an article that has been recently worked upon by the other. I also think there needs to be a harassment notation; setting up parallel articles to get round restrictions on dealing directly, for instance, need to be dealt with - Ncmvocalists gives the determination of what constitutes harassment to three administrators, so complaints under this proposal may easily be brought to WP:ANI. I think that is fine. I would prefer a wording in your suggested proposal that limits discussion on talkpages to that which does not refer to this/previous/other matters and is only directly related to article content. Lastly, I would like Ncmvocalist's input upon your proposal - if only in recognition for the work and effort in reviewing the matter and bringing forward the proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Natalya. Enforcement is going to always be problematic for either my first set of remedies or this proposal. In the case of the alternative remedy I noted, I think it's clear and reasonably fair for all, and if other admins later find themselves needing to enforce it, it'll be simple and effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC)And sad to say, this is exactly what I said would happen last time, when Abtract was blocked for his sixth time for edit warring, personal attacks, and harassment of Sesshomaru and Collectonian. He was unblocked earlier than his previous block with yet another promise to stay away, which lasted all of a week or so, then he was found to be keeping a sandbox list of edits from Sess and Coll and personal attacks on them for future reference.

His behavior hasn't changed, you can see that from his talk page. He follows these two users around until they snap, then he's very nice and professional to any admin who comes to attention. He's an Eddie Haskell type around authority figures.

There are two productive editors here who have asked for help multiple times from admins, and one productive editor who can't seem to keep away from them and has been blocked multiple times by multiple admins for harassment and stalking. As I've said before, we're bending over backwards to keep one guy who's doing his best to drive two others off the project.

There was an edit conflict here, so responding to Natalya's good faith proposal, it sounds like a good idea. However, if you'll check Abtract's talk page and block log, he's been asked before on many many occasions to leave the other two alone. He can't seem to do it. Even when he's not editing them, he's making notes in his sandbox for the next chance he gets to edit their work. Dayewalker (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this or any proposal going to be agreed, or imposed?

Previously when Ncmvocalist got involved and provided a framework resolve this, it was not signed up for by all parties and thus we are here again. Are we, the parties that do agree and those others that are commenting here, going to impose a restriction if there is not an agreement between the three parties concerned? Although I would prefer it to be by agreement (grudging or otherwise) I am inclined to impose it, but would also be open to referring the imposition to the larger community for "ratification". LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE TO ALL I've made a slight change to the wording [9] - the alternative remedy seems most effective, so it would allow Sesshomaru to be added if necessary.
• Yes, we've tried given them a chance to go on equal footing by avoiding each other as a voluntary agreement - as there are issues with that, we have to impose it. Given the history, I'd personally prefer if it's (in terms of admins) jointly imposed by yourself, Natalya and JHunterJ, but it can go in front of the larger community (to be a listed community sanction). In terms of which remedy, like Natalya, I'd prefer the alternative remedy I suggested as there is little that can go wrong (and to clarify for both parties - reverting any of each others edits, I think, would violate that restriction as it would be deemed indirect interaction). Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you folks want me to do? This matter is becoming more serious. Like Collectonian said, calling the police wouldn't be a bad idea. She doesn't deserve this type of harassment. Nobody does. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as per Abtract's response below, he is once again doing his usual thing of refusing to truly admit any error on his part, blaming other people and trying to twist things to make himself appear perfectly innocent (and denying how many times he's been blocked, though it is public record). At least he was nice enough to admit his goodbyes were little digs, though of course they weren't really his fault either. I'd like to see some kind of restriction done, or something to get him to just plain out leave both of us alone. This has been going on since what, May? What kind of person continues to stalk and harass over what he continues to claim was just a little issue? And, if this is put into place, what happens when he breaks it again? Will we just be back here in a few more weeks/months going through the same motions again or will this finally be the last straw? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The past has lead us to this point, and it is perhaps fruitless to make a definitive statement of who said what and who did what when the purpose is to stop any similar incidents arising in the future. This proposal, it appears that Ncmvocalist's second option is the one that will be adopted, is designed to end this matter - violations will be dealt with as indicated. For this reason it is going to be imposed if agreement between the parties cannot be found; there will be no case of "I didn't agree to that part" or "I don't feel that this applies" because it is not open to the parties to determine what constitutes a violation. So, in answer to the second part of your query, any party who breaks it will be sanctioned. Under the circumstances, it does not matter who is to blame if the problem is solved. I hope this answers your concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So, we are thinking of going with the "no contact whatsoever between Collectonian and Abtract" solution? A few clarifications, then (if I'm not jumping the gun):

• Do we want to include Sesshomaru in this agreement, making it no contact between Abtract and Collectonian/Sesshomaru?
• No contact seems to imply some concept of not editing articles that the other has edited - but, any article ever edited by one of the editors? Edited within the last month? Something else? I'm assuming it implies no contact via any kind of talk pages too?
• When formalized, do we want to make this official, via AN, or somewhere else appropriate?

-- Natalya 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Me and Collectonian get along just fine. It's Abtract that's the problem. Also, what about the dabs that Abtract and I have watchlisted? We keep an eye on many of the same ones. How to settle that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Resp to Natalya; Per Sesshomaru above; Abtract and/or Collectonian/Sesshomaru (C & S work together on several articles). Resp to Sesshomaru; Although I cannot see how you may conflict over a dab page, I suggest that either you or Abtract should contact me, Ncmvocalist (?), Natalya (?), JHunterJ (?), or Dayewalker (?), or any other editor willing to act, to explain the nature of the problem - which we will then attempt to resolve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (?) = providing that editor confirms they will act in that capacity.

Further resp to Natalya; the prohibition is to interacting "directly or indirectly" - my understanding is that no party can edit what the other has written. This would allow parties to work on the same article but different areas (although for ease of clarity it would be best if they didn't) but not in any manner that would conflict with what the other has edited - e.g. one couldn't edit that the subject was Belgium, and the other in a different section note that the subject was Dutch since that would be covered by indirectly. It would apply to talkpages, again they can speak to someone else but not in such a way as to indirectly interact with the other... It might be a pain, but these are the consequences of not previously worked out some lasting resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, on further thought, I can see that. You're right; there's no easy way to run this, but your description in your further response is good. I think it's important that there is consistancy in enforcing said rules. I'm happy to be one of the contact points for possible/inevitable discussions that come up with articles that both Abtract and Sesshomaru have worked on. Yeah, it'll be awkward, but so it goes.

It'd be great to get Ncmvocalist, JHunterJ, and Dayewalker's thoughts on ways to improve this; perhaps we are approaching a final remedy. I've posted on their talk pages, so hopefully they'll have a look. -- Natalya 19:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. I will be happy to archive this... I think I may put it and the Freemasonry matter also on this page into one big archive for mediation attempts - providing I can think up a bad enough punning title, of course... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to where this leaves Oxford Scientific Films? Abtract technically created it, however I have done far more work on it[10] and, at least as of this post, was the last to edit it. If the agreement includes not editing one another's articles (and hopefully also taking those articles off one's watchlist if we aren't supposed to touch it), then which of us should abandon this specific one? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

1. "Me and Collectonian get along just fine. It's Abtract that's the problem." No, the problem is the interactions between you, Collectonian, and Abtract. Each of you has contributed to the problem during the various edit wars. That's the problem that is going to take work from all three of you and several admins to solve.
2. For enforcement, if one of them does edit text that another wrote, in cases where there were intervening edits by other editors, we have a question of knowledge -- either we include in the agreement that they must check the most recent 50 (or some other number) edits and verify that their intended edits do not violate this stipulation, or we add a provision that if the original editor detects and objects to such an edit, they may revert it with the diff link in the edit summary.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of addressing who was more wronged, or who deserves most blame, in formulating how we are going to go forward (which point I have already made to Collectonian). As for the second point, when approaching a new article each party should review the contributions history. The first page should be sufficient (unless there is such activity that the first 50 edits covers only a couple days) since the prohibition is to dealing directly or indirectly with each other and likely the 50+ edits would deprecate that issue. If this were not the case, then yes it could be reverted with a linking diff - although I would prefer the editor refer it to one of the admins to do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not of addressing whom was more wronged, but of defining the problem. The problem is not "Abtract", and that viewpoint has caused problems with getting the problem resolved to date. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to restrict Sess and me in a way that would minimise our interaction and be easy to police, why not limit me to dab pages with no more than five characters in the page title (not counting qualifiers like disambiguation, name, surname, etc) and let Sess have all the rest (pages with six or more characters)? Alternatively you could limit me to dab pages starting with A-M and Sess to pages starting N-Z. There is also major potential for overlap on the talkpages of mos:dab and WP:D ... my suggestion there is that once one of us has joined a thread, the other should not, unless specifically allowed by the first one. Just a helpful thought. Abtract (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I quite like that idea for separating out disambiguation pages (goodness knows there are more than enough for all of us and our mothers); the A-M for one and N-Z for the other sounds great; then you can both still do disambiguation work, but there's very little chance for overlap. Also good is the suggestion for how to avoid conflicts on the disambiguation talk pages; in the event that one editor just absolutely needs to express an opinion, they could contact myself or JHunterJ (or another admin, but I think the two of us are the disambiguated-related ones) to make sure that the point is discussed. For all other pages, I think the suggestion by JHunterJ is good; if there are intervening edits, an edit by one of the editors in question must have been at least 50 edits before (or, if the edit history is very active, 1 week ago). -- Natalya 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This matter has been an ongoing one and so it is important to ensure that a strict and simple remedy is applied, for the benefit of any admin who ends up intervening. (As a separate note, this is a standard remedy that has been used before without any extra provisions - so if we're adding any new provisions, we need to keep it simple). In other words, reviewing each incident shouldn't be requiring extra time than is absolutely necessary.

We're effectively banning them from each other. If there's something urgent like a BLP vio, bringing it to an admin's attention is what they need to do. The same can go for when they need to discuss something on common dab pages (like the WikiProject). As for other articles, a firm limit is more appropriate - each party will need to check if the other has made any edit in the past 1 week. If they have, then they cannot edit that article. If they haven't (and it was say 8 days ago), then they can edit. If it is found that they edited even though the other has editted that article in the past 7 days or 168 hours, then they'll be blocked briefly, or, if it's too late for a block as it would be punitive, then they're to be page-banned for 1 month from the last time they edited it - this is the only way to ensure this remedy is applied effectively. I'm guessing that covers all bases - anything else? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that BLP vio is the one area where there is freedom from prohibition, since nothing we agree here should effect Office derived policy. Other vandalism should be reported, fast and widely, for resolution (although I personally am not going to sanction anyone who removes "Kez suckz ballz" type vandalism from any article). Bottom line is; Do not edit, directly or indirectly, content recently previously edited by the other party/ies - any matter of concern should be referred to one of the supervising editors/admins. On that note, said supervisors are on their own cognition to advise and act but are encouraged to refer to another where there is doubt.

Can I ask if there are any more substantial questions/concerns that need addressing, or can we put this in place? Yay or say, please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm not clear if that is meant to apply to articles other than dab pages because you have agreed my suggestion of a dab page split or that you didn't like my suggestion or what?
2. My comment about "7 days" is that, on pages where there is a lot of activity, that is going to be quite hard to check (it's easy to miss one edit in a few hundred) and, on pages with little or no activity, it is meaningless as we simply have to wait out the week and may be making the very next edit, which is presumably not what you want.
3. I am guessing that you are looking for a way of keeping us apart that is clear (therefore easily enforceable) and preferably easy for us to adhere to (therefore less likely to be broken) so howabout this? I will not edit dab pages N-Z, anime pages, manga pages, Meerkat pages (thus giving up Oxford Scientific Films), USA pages or any discussion thread that Sess or Coll have edited. Sess and Coll will not edit dab pages A-M, card games pages, physics pages, UK pages or any discussion thread that I have edited. On all other pages we will not edit where the other has done so in the last 50 edits. All this can be over-ridden if one invites the other to enter forbidden territory. Personal talkpages are at the discretion of the owner. Abtract (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re dab pages; the prohibition says one party cannot, directly or indirectly, edit content by the other party/ies (this does not include Sess & Coll regarding each other) - which means that the same articles might be edited as long as the edit does not impact the others contribution. While it is easier not to edit any article with recent contributions by the other "side" at all, dab pages can still be edited by either side easily as long such edits do not effect the others edits. Having some form of voluntary agreement, or working to your own, helps but should not form part of the proposal - keep it simple and the risk of violation decreases. Your suggestions here are noted, and Sess and/or Coll may comment as they please - but this is not binding, and will simply be for guidance to all parties.

As for "inviting" the other side to edit, since there can be no direct communication this should be done via an supervising editor and any subsequent edit should have that fact noted in the summary.

Does that cover the concerns? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the ball is in your court but what I see drafted above is quite complex and is going to be quite difficult to work to imho, whereas my simpler and more specific suggestions would be dead easy because I have covered pretty well all the types of pages where interaction is likely. I don't quite see why you say such specifics should not be included? Abtract (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is more difficult to endorse, I do think it needs to be having those specifics can, at least, be helpful. It still leaves potential conflicts in areas that fall outside of those areas, such as TV and film articles, but it covers the bulk of the pages where the incidents have occurred. About the only exception I can think of is dividing US and UK articles because thats far to open to interpretation (OSF is related to Meerkat Manor, but its also a UK company and most of the Meerkat pages are UK oriented) and while I can't speak for Sess, I do edit a few other UK movie, television series, and company articles. Still, as a whole, I would like something that does at least keep Abtract away from the bulk of articles I edit and restrict him from popping into any discussion I'm already a part of, which will solve most of issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with both ideas to an extent. Having separation of article topics is a good idea to avoid contact; at the same time, I think it would be a little unreasonable (and would easily provoke ire) to block one of the three for editing an article outside their range, even if there has been no work by the other editor on the article (and, Collectonian, as long as Abtract hasn't had anything to do with the UK articles you edit, etc, you should have no trouble working on them). I think we should leave the separation of articles as sort of an honor code, per se, leaving it up to Abtract and Collectonian/Sesshomaru to stay out of the spheres of the others. Then, we strictly enforce the blocking if one of the parties edits another article edited by the other party. With that combination, the enforcement is reasonable and addressed the actual problem, while the information separation makes the likelyhood of breaches less likely.

I'm still trying to figure out the best way to word/arrange the editing of articles part of the arrangment. With the discussion of time constraints, there are good points that parties could get around them/wait for time limits/generally game the system, which, if we can avoid, would be lovely. I'm tempted to suggested a two part solution:

• Either party cannot revert, in whole or in part, any edit made by the other party, ever.
• Additionaly, one party may edit a page that the other party has edited only if it is clearly unrelated to anything the other party is working on. (We could insert a time limit there too, say, even if it's unrealted it has to be a week after the person has edited, for safety).

Do you folks think that might work?

LessHeard vanU, let me see if I can pick up from where you left off to summarize this whole arrangment. Abtract and Collectonian/Sesshomaru:

• [Insert finalized deal about editing pages here]
• May not post on each other's talk pages.
• May not join in discussions in which one party is already a part of on other User/Article/Wikipedia/anything talk pages.
• Shall contact an administrator if it is absolutely necessary to convey something on one of these pages.
• In the even that any party violates these terms, they shall be blocked for up to a week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (taken from Ncmvocalist's early suggestions).

-- Natalya 15:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to be cooperative and helpful here but I just don't think that would work, sorry. "cannot revert ever" is a long time and impossible to check in practice - how will I know, 6 months after the event, if I am changing their edit? "Clearly unrelated" is also very subjective. Also, I thought you were trying to avoid a solution based on an "honour code" (much as I would like that). Imho it needs to be clear and specific; I am certainly willing to be very flexible on the detail as evidenced by agreeing to an article I created going to Coll. I will have another go at it later. Abtract (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just checking to see where things are? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion

Trying to take the spirit of all that has been said above, I have arrived at this suggested solution which imho should be workable and not too onerous for the three participants or the overseeing admins:

• Objective. This set of remedies is designed to encourage and enable Abtract, Collectonian and Sesshomaru to use their talents constructively within the Wikipedia community without harmful interaction between them.
• Method. Interaction will be prohibited on certain topic pages and limited by time on others. On all pages, reverting or partial reverting by one of the other is prohibited.
• Applicable to Abtract. Abtract must not edit any disambiguaton page (of all types) and SIA starting with the letters N - Z; articles on topics closely associated with manga, anime, meerkats, films / movies and the United States; or any article where Collectonian or Sesshomaru had made one of the previous 50 edits within the last week; or any talk page thread which has been entered by Collectonian or Sesshomaru; or in any way which reverts or partially reverts a recent edit by Collectionan or Sesshomaru.
• Applicable to Collectonian and Seshomaru. Collectonian and Sesshomaru must not edit any disambiguation page (of all types) and SIA starting with the letters A - M; or any page on topics closely associated with card games / board games, physics / maths / science, Enid Blighton and the United Kingdom or any article where Abtract had made one of the previous 50 edits within the last week; or any talk page thread which has been entered by Abtract; or in any way which reverts or partially reverts a recent edit by Abtract.
• Applicable to all three parties. All three users are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and must adhere to it in future, particularly where the other is concerned. Access to personal talk pages to be by invitation only.
• Supervisers/enforcement. User:JHunterJ, User:LessHeard vanU and User:Natalya will supervise and have complete discretionary powers to advise, caution or block for up to 7 days; blocks of longer duration to be decided by at least two supervisors but hopefully this will not prove necessary.
• Duration. This set of remedies will be reviewed by the three supervisors (the three participants may comment only) in six months time with a view to relaxation. In any event it will cease automatically in 12 months.

I may have missed something seriously important but it's late here. I am away for the weekend and will be starting my course early on Monday, so good luck. Abtract (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It went quiet, and I am trying to gather my energies to try and shove through a wording that nobody likes (which seems to be the only way to get agreement at the moment), after which I shall hand out some arbitrary blocks </humour>. Seriously, I am thinking of adopting NCMVocalists second otion and letting you, Sess and Abtract agree a split between the outstanding issues. Once that is agreed it can be adopted and I will come down like a ton of bricks on any violation </not humour>. I trust you can see that violations need to be dealt with severely if it is to work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, is this in affect yet? Because of so, Abtract has already broken it, editing an anime episode list that I am very clearly active on with his edit coming less than 10 minutes after one I did.[11] Even if factually correct, it still violates what was stated here and shows that he is still stalking my watchlist as, once again, it is an anime article he has never touched before and its been made clear over the months that he has no real knowledge or interest in the topic. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He also explicitly reverted an edit at Joy of Painting[12] that he knew I'd agreed with due to the discussion on my talk page and User:Wikiuser100's complaint on the talk page.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for 6 hours and he is complaining that there is no agreement yet. We shall see any reviewing admin makes of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. Thanks...meanwhile, back to editing :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record

Whilst judge and jury are working above, I feel the need to put on record the actual events since the "agreement" was created.

• The agreement was my idea to help us move forward. Yes, I was still agrieved that Coll had not admitted that she was in error here and Sess was a constant irritation (though I now see that this says at least as much about me as about him), but I wanted to move forward so that I could start to enjoy wp again.
• I signed the agreement and, to his credit, so did Sess. To my surprise, Coll dismissed the idea out of hand.
• I intended to follow the agreement absolutely and did so, with the exception of a couple of partial reverts (I thought I was building on previous edits but JHJ - who I respect - decided I had transgressed mildly). Sess also transgressed mildly in a similar way. JHJ helped us through this period.
• Coll has raised my creation of the Oxford Scientific Films as though this was somehow a bad thing because she had intended to create it herself. This is how it actually happened: I had lost my enthusiasm for dab pages for obvious reasons so I was "random article" editing and stumbled across Philip James DeVries where I made a couple of minor changes and added a fact tag; in so doing I noticed some redlinks and thought "Maybe I should try my hand at creating an article on a subject about which I know nothing", so I did. This article was Partridge Films which I created on 29 July. "Mmmm that wasn't so difficult, let's try another one" - this time it was OSF which as you will see is right next to PF on the PJDV article here. Make something bad of that if you will.
• Sess decided he wanted out of the agreement but seemed unable to understand the terms JHJ was offering him.
• Since things were not too bad with Sess, and I was re-thinking a lot of things as I was preparing for changes in the real world, I decided it to help him exit the agreement - and of course I wanted it to end too. With JHJ's help I thought we had achived that at User talk:JHunterJ/Abtract Sesshomaru Neutral Ground on 25 August.
• Having made my peace with Sess and with uni looming I wrote a some farewell notes including to Sess and Coll.
  • to Coll read "(Friendly advice) I am more or less leaving Wikipedia to concentrate on my studies so this is by way of a sad farewell for now. If you will forgive me giving you some advice for the future: when you realise you have made a mistake, admit it. You will feel better and so will those around you. Have fun. :) Abtract (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)" Of course it was a, very mild, dig but it was also good advice because she clearly still hasn't admitted even to herself that she was in error over the bitch episode (well perhaps she has to herself but certainly not to others - read it again and see what you think). With hindsight, it was probably not sensible of me to have one last dig and I suppose her reaction was predicatable if somewhat over-the-top - how on earth she can accuse me of stalking her when my only edits in proximity to her have been on OSF an article I created and then only to make very minor edits including the date edit. Let's look at her statements here and then the truth:
    • "concentrate on his studies (now obviously a false claim)" I am (on Monday for my sins) starting a full-time degree course and will indeed be around here much less - "obviously a false claim" mmm.
    • "He began making edits after me any time I worked on the Oxford Scientific Films article" Untrue as the log will show: Coll edited 15 times (yes fifteen) before I built on those edits with one (yes 1) of my own which also changed the date format to British (it is a British company, I started the article with British spelling and dates), she fully reverted me 7 minutes later with this "I own the article now" edit summary "Will fix up the rest in a minute". Not to be outdone, I rather understandably reverted her with a very mild edit summary "talk about "sledgehammer to crack a nut" ... the date is in the wrong format so you revert the whole lot? Get away woman.". Since that point Coll has made 25 edits and I have made three. "making edits after me every time I worked on the OSF article" sounds a bit (how can I put this tactfully?) untrue when the facts are on the table.
    • "He filed a falsified 3RR report against me" - every editor who has looked at it agrees it was legitimate and was not "falsified"
    • "Eight blocks" - I don't think so. Abtract (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • "this kind of behavior, which I frankly find to be disturbing and psychotic. In real life, he'd already be behind bars, or at least under a restraining order" - what exactly is her problem? Even by her own accusations (all of which are demonstrably false) I have created an article she wanted to and made edits to it, said farewell and offered advice, reported her for 3RR violation and .... err help me here I can't think of anything else.
  • My message to Sess was a very friendly goodby for now with just a hint of advice (but with an admission that I needed the same advice as much as he did). Sadly I had forgotten that his command of the English language is not the best and I guess he thought he was being attacked. Read it and decide for yourself if I was being friendly or attacking "(Sad farewell) I am going to be concentrating on my studies so I won't be around much in the future (in term-time anyway). I am pleased we managed to patch up our differences before I went, it was quite genuine on my part. I will still be here occasionally so, if you would like my opinion on anything, don't hesitate to ask or to point me towards an article or discussion you want me to think about. Good luck with your "tweaking" and don't get too uptight about stuff, you are too much like me in that respect. A friend of mine has this very apposite question she asks herself when difficult situations arise: "Does it really matter?" Many supposed problems can be solved by realising that the answer is "No". Enjoy, my friend. :) Abtract (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)". His response was disappointing; first he removed my message then he posted this on JHJ's talk page immediately below Coll's complaint (maybe influenced by it?) "Left me a similar message. Don't know who he is to say that I'm "uptight". Such audacity. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)" - I guess he just didn't get it, which is a shame.
    • Following that we had a couple of dab page skirmishes on both of which I was proved to be "correct" but I was really stupid to revert him; I won't make that mistake again.

That is probably enough for now, I have some reading to do, good luck. Abtract (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions on editing of articles between Abtract (talk · contribs), and Collectonian (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs)

Important Notice These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Abtract, as one party, and Collectonian and Sesshomaru, as the other parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.)
• A division between both parties of future work on disambiguation pages may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, but otherwise the above restrictions apply.
• The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

The discussion relating to the drafting of the above restriction (adapted by LessHeard vanU from the original - and revision - by Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)) can be found here.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

+ + + + +

Neutral ground requests

Guessing this is part of the neutral ground? If so, I'd like to request the Abtract agree to his earlier proposed agreement that he not "edit any articles on topics closely associated with manga, anime, meerkats, films / movies and the United States" including not creating articles he is aware I (or Sesshomaru) intend to create. If he agrees, can this be included fully in the agreement? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever agreements you have should be noted here (I will copy this to Abtracts page). Generally, this is going to be self policed - if a party doesn't complain then it isn't likely to be actioned - and therefore agreements between yourselves will work. ps. What is your counter offer, what can you give Abtract in response? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really since I've never really edited in his "realm" to being with. He's the only one who was following and hitting articles in my area. I rarely touch Disambig stuff, and anything he's edited is already covered by the main agreement. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's of any consolation, I'd like for Abtract to list the remaining pages on his watchlist. IIRC, he claims to have removed 90% of it. Which ones remained? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, considering this note[13] can it be made more explicitly clear that Abtract is to STOP the contrib stalking and STOP following our contribs so he can find ways to be annoying, like "tattling" or trying to find ways to get us in trouble (like his earlier stalking to find a 3RR violation and then report on it). Nor is there anything inappropriate at all in removing a forum type posting and leaving a message for a new person. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I, or the other admins, will be the conduit for any such observations - I have already commented to Abtract that such notifications may fall under the "indirectly" as regards other parties edits. To be honest, it is a question of good faith reporting - like a definite howler once in a while, then fine; if it is a steady stream of "lookee here" incidents, then it mau begin to appear to be bad faith. Ultimately, though, there is no way of knowing who is watching what - but providing nothing untoward comes of it then it is best disregarded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[::Alrighty...cause it sure seems like he is continuing to follow my contribs and/or watchlisting my talkpage by his continuing remarks about "biting" newbies and his wanting to run around and welcome all newbies after I interact with them.[14] which, to me, seems like him finding yet another way to get around an restriction.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I await your instructions

In the meantime presumably you noticed Sess's edit to this talk page of a dab page I created? Abtract (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your instructions; I hope you will interpret them, in the future, more fairly than you have done so far. Abtract (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I notice that whilst you have unilaterally imposed the restrictions you have stated that they ... are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators". mmmm Abtract (talk)

I don't want to be a part of it

LessHeard vanU, I can't accept this. Abtract and I have too many of the same pages on our watchlist, so, there is a big chance that we'll still be "editing the same pages". And now you're suggesting that I can't interact with Collectonian either. NO WAY. I'm sorry but I'll have to decline another contract. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

wp:newbies

I wonder if you would be kind enough as to inform Coll that this and thisis not the way to treat newcomers ... this guy hasn't even been welcomed yet, may I welcome them? Thanks. Abtract (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no-one has welcomed this guy yet; I wonder, could you do it please? Also User:Hexhand appears never to have been welcomed yet he started editing in June; I wouldn't want them to think we are all going to bite them so maybe you could welcome them as well? If you don't want to, that's ok I will ask some-one else. Abtract (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to welcome someone, especially if they seem to have the hang of things, just because they have been missed previously. No welcome is not biting them. I really would just let these things slide. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of these relatively newcomers have been bitten by Collectonian, may I welcome them? Abtract (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment goes unanswered

I'm referring to this. Can we solve this problem before I or Abtract get blocked for "editing the same page as the other"? Please reply at User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive, or your talk page if preferred. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, Abtract reverted on a page I recently edited. Didn't you say this was against the contract? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thinks "I wonder if he noticed that I reverted back to his version?". Abtract (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, may this edit be reverted? I'm only asking this because Abtract made edits to the page before. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted. Per WP:AGF I am not going to ask how you noticed it. Give me a while regarding the second comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked JHunterJ to look into it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The prohibition is against "interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia". I'm assuming no other intra-party accords have been reached about other restrictions or divisions of labor. Given that, I'd say thtqa this reversion, in which Abtract reverts an uninvolved user's edit to a version of Sesshomaru's, is clearly fine. Similarly, Sesshomaru could have reverted this edit (an anonymous user's addition to a page also touched by Abtract). On a topic not discussed in this section, Sesshomaru's addition of a dab project tag to create a Talk page for a disambiguation page created by Abtract is also 100% fine. Could the parties involved reserve the complaints for situations where they actually disagree with the contents of the resulting page, please? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks J, I've done this as a result of your investigation. I'm willing to resolve the matter, but everyone keeps ignoring a primary concern of mine. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I really do think you have taken a sledge-hammer to crack a nut here guys. Sess and I had all but ironed out our differences and come to an understanding on JHJ's special page; this was sadly undone when Sess misunderstood my friendly farewell note (possibly because he wanted to be seen to support Coll). Left to our own devices I am pretty sure we can co-exist on all pages with Sess taking a minute detailed approach and me being cavalier and missing stuff. If Sess is happy for the restrictions between us to be removed (and I sense that he is) then why not make life easy for all of us and do so? I make no similar comment about Collectonian. Abtract (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you and Sess are happy to edit without the restrictions, you are welcome to do so -- provided you agree with each other to avoid reporting the other to the admins, we will remain blissfully unaware of the activity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Think that answers my question. Much appreciated J. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the restrictions on Abtract and I are still in effect, correct? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The restrictions between Collectonian and Abtract are in effect, yes. The restrictions between Sesshomaru and Abtract are also still in effect, although possibly those two users might agree or have already agreed not to report any violations of those restrictions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Per JHunterJ above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we be clear that neither of the three admins involved will punish Sess or me for "interaction violations" unless one of us reports the other? And Sess, are we clear that we have grown through our problems, understand our differing styles and will edit responsibly around each other (I suggest this should mean we do not revert each other at least for a few months)? If this is what's being said I am quite happy to go along with it. Abtract (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed - no sanctions regarding interactions between Abtract and Sesshomaru unless reported by an involved party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, I'll be more than happy to answer your questions long as you reply to mine. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you mean what pages are on my watchlist, it isn't relevant since we will be operating without restrictions. Abtract (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You're actually gonna believe that? Or are you still trying to find ways to ignore me? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do believe it; why would he lie to us? Abtract (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, forget it. Guess we'll never get our respective answers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand that but let's move on ... do you want to operate like adults with no restrictions on a "no reporting and no reverting" basis or not? Abtract (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, what is the point in answering you if you won't respond to my query? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, Again

He is again breaking the agreement by editing a page he knows I edit, and showing that he is again continuing to stalk my contribs.[15] Yes, it is a "good" edit, but it still goes against the agreement to stop bothering me. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Abtract's complaint here[16], that edit he did a week ago was another he did right after mine doing his stalking thing and for which he was also warned. I would presume that if he violates the agreement and edits a page he knows I edit, that does not mean I'm suddenly banned from editing a page I've been editing previous just because he decided to break the agreement, right? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still sorta wondering that for myself. Because I'm inadvertently editing dabs that Abtract touched, will I eventually be sanctioned? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to both, a review of this article indicates that it was substantially edited by C since April. As I responded to A, making one previous edit is both insufficient to claim ownership and it is for the disquiet engendered by that kind of previous edit that the restriction is in place. As you will both have noted in previous discussions, contributions to an article that had been historically edited by an "opposing" party but not recently is allowed - but it would be easier not to edit it any way. If you really feel the need to edit such an article and are in doubt, refer it to one of the supervising admins (spread it around a bit, I shouldn't be allowed to have all the fun) and if okayed refer to it in the edit summary. Specifically to S, it appears that you and A have an agreement not to report each other for minor transgressions - if you continue then fine, but if one reports the other then both editors contributions will be reviewed and I suggest that you both will then be subject to strict application of the restriction from then on (unless you again agree to let such matters slide). The idea behind the restriction is to limit interaction between the parties, and to avoid these problems. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am still unclear on the nature of the prohibition. Abtract and Collectonian are prohibited from "interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia". Abtract's rv on List of Naruto episodes is neither. There is no mention of "bothering", and Collectonian acknowledges that this is a good edit (no quotation marks needed). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While I am more inclined to working within the spirit of the restriction rather than the letter, I believe "...interacting with..." covers editing an article which has been substantially edited by another party to the restriction, and had not been previously regularly or substantially edited by the "transgressing" party. It formed much of the discussion regarding the interpretation of NCMvocalist's draft proposal, which has been since adopted. It has been made clear that Collectonian regards Abtracts presence on articles that is on her watchlist and sphere of editing interests as stalking, and Abtract should be aware of that even if he disagrees. I see no allowance per the restriction in Abtract either watchlisting the article or reviewing Collectonians recent editing history (although it cannot be proven that either happened), and no justification in editing the article where there are other WP editors who could have made the same edit. Whatever understanding Abtract and Sesshomaru may come to, Collectonian does not want Abtract editing articles in which she is involved and will use the restriction to ensure that it happens. This is the spirit of the restriction, a means to stop what one party considers harassment by the other. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be wary of further fostering the idea of WP:OWN, however. I thought both the spirit and the letter were aimed at the parties edits to another party's edits. I disagree that the spirit of the restriction is to stop "what one party considers harassment"; the spirit of the restriction is to stop the edit wars and incivility, neither of which were endangered by Abtract's revert of an uninvolved editor's edit. If one of the parties is intent on feeling harassed by that, I do not think it is in Wikipedia's interested to apply a salve there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Collectonian prohibited from commenting in any way on Abtract's edits? DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am allowed to report transgressions to the agreement here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN does not apply with regard to a raft of articles where one editor wishes to stop one other from making insubstantial edits, but no restrictions on any other contributors - it is in the manner of a topic ban on one editor widely construed as related to the other accounts editing interests. The perception of harassment, and not the intent, has always been the crux of WP:HARASS, so this is as much a valid concern as any other aspect. I suggest that we allow Natalya (and NCMvocalist?) to comment how they regard the restriction should be implemented. If we are still not in agreement, then I think we need consider taking the entire matter to ArbCom to see if and how they see fit to resolve this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't an issue of ownership of articles. It is an issue of Abtract deliberately wikistalking my contribs to make minor edits to articles I edit for the sole purpose of annoying and harassing me. That has always been my issue with Abtract, and it has been stated multiple times he is to leave me alone. Continue to make edits to articles he knows I'm active on, usually right after me, is not leaving me alone. He has been doing this bull since May, and still is allowed numerous chances to just stop. This is very clearly covered in WP:STALK and a violation of the entire "no harassment" policy. Abtract knows this, he's acknowledged he was doing it, yet seems incapable of stopping himself from continuing to do it, and continuing to follow my contribs to find new ways to harass including false attempts to get me blocked.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"attempts to get me blocked"...not to sound mean or anything, but is Abstract somehow controlling your mind to make you do things that would get you blocked? Come on. If you feel Abstract is being a tool, you bring the problem to an admin, as you have done here. That said, some of your postes since coming here are full of a lot of bad faith that creates more problems than it resolves. Its better to take the high road, remain above the fray, and not end up in a SPADE argument. You know this, Coll. Cool down. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes, he has, making unfounded 3RR reports in issues he wasn't involved in, but only watched my contribs and did a report after the issue was already solved. And sorry, but you get stalked for half a year, see how much good faith you have in your stalker. Would you tell that to someone getting stalked in real life? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You're calling an edit both "good" and "annoying and harassing". I do not understand why you are annoyed or harassed by "good" edits, even if they were made by an editor you don't like. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the real world, Collectonian. However, were it the real world, you don't confront the stalker, you head to the authorities, report them and stand back, eat popcorn and watch the ensuing fireworks. Badmouthing them does nothing to allow the personality conflct to fade off into the aether. I am sure you watch Abstract's edit history as well, and wouldn't hesitate to report them if you noted a violation of the rules. Neither one of you are the sheriff of the other, and until you both recognize this, your time editing is going to be less than enjoyable, and far more combative than it needs to be. Note that I am not slapping you around; I know you feel entitled to be upset, but it helps everyone, including yourself, to remain level-headed and removed from the dispute. I've learned that the hard way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it sure seems like you are "slapping me around" and basically telling me to put up with it or go away. I did head to the authorities, aka the administrators, but as I noted when this agreement was made his actions not only violate Wikipedia's policies, but they also violate real-life anti-stalking laws. And sorry, but no, I do not watch his edit history at all. Unlike him, I don't feel the need to stalk just to be annoying or attempt to cause trouble. When he leaves me the hell alone and stops the stalking, the issue will be resolved. But as long as some admins and users support his "right" to act in such a fashion, he will never stop. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And if you are not blocked for that blatant personal attack (declaring another editor to be insane and accusing him of criminal activity) I will be very surprised. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You do not get blocked for a single personal attack, nor do I consider it to be one. That wasn't an accusation, it was a statement about his actions, no him. I struck the rest, though I feel its a valid question. See worse at AN/I, but of course no one gets blocked there for that. Funny how that works...and of course, I'm sure Abtract is laughing like crazy that folks are flocking to his defense yet again. Its how he got off from an indef block before, and how he will continue to be allowed to do this sort of thing to anyone who he decides to harass out of petty revenge (by his own admission, he is doing all this over the "bitch" episode because he thinks I own him an apology for something that happen in May, so thats not a personal attack).-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you were meant to refrain from commenting on him. Reporting a perceived breach of the conditions is one thing, but to follow it up in the way you have is quite another. Is that your understanding of the agreement? That he gets blocked for repairing an article and you get to attack his motives and sanity? DuncanHill (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

By my understanding, he is not supposed to edit any article I have edited within the last 50 contribs, period, and it doesn't matter if the edit is legitimate or not. He's supposed to stay away and he is not supposed to check my contribs to find articles to com behind me on. And I wouldn't have said anything more if people hadn't decided to attack me for reporting his transgression, as per the agreement. As for his motives, that is not an attack, he has admitted it before in several of the previous AN/Is on him. He has no interest in anime, and only makes those edits because he came behind me (and at times Sesshomaru) to find pages we edited. He himself admitted more than once that he WAS stalking us. Again, how is that an insult? Its a statement of fact confirmed by him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The 50 contribs came up in discussion but was not incorporated into the restrictions imposed. The restrictions as imposed were as I quoted above, "interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia." Since his edit did not interact with you (your edits) or comment on you, I do not see a violation. The ambiguity there, if there is one, may warrant the inclusion of one of the suggested clarifying pieces (such as checking the edit history). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And LessHeard, was the edit actually a violation pf the prohibition? I see Duncan's point that it creates a situation that reinforces an OWN opinion; Collectonian is the only editor of the two that gets to edit in a given article? That hardly seems fair. I think that perhaps the block should at least be admin reviewed, since the edit supporting the block was both a good edit as well as an edit not contraverting Collectionian's. If an uninvolved person can wonder if it si a good block, and not a punitive, subjective one, noticeboard review would appear to be a good step in this matter between two editors at odds. Just my opinion, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a good edit - repairing damage to an article. It did not in any way alter anything that Collectonian had inserted into the article (as far as I can see), and it is not, in my opinion, supportive of Collectonian's claim of "stalking my contributions". I appreciate that there is a long and difficult history between the editors in question, and that keeping them apart is likely to benefit them both, but a block for an edit which repairs damage is troublesome to me. DuncanHill (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

An erstwhile good edit can be harassing, and can otherwise lead to sanction. I could correct the spelling mistakes in Arcaynes post, and then go and review Arcaynes recent contributions and correct any further "mistakes" I find. If I found them in article space then I am correct to do so, and within my talkpage I might be found to be acting reasonably... but in other spaces it might be considered as breaching etiquette. If I were to continue to do this, arguing that there is no policy that specifically disallows these edits (and I am improving the encyclopedia)), Arcayne may start to feel uncomfortable - especially if they were the only account (or one of a few) being so corrected. Only the other day another matter in which I was involved resulted in an editor being blocked for 3 months for continually editing other peoples talkpage contributions as regard their posting times and errors in formatting and spelling. Nothing major, and arguably technically valid, but with a detrimental effect to other editors.

In this matter, the regularity in which Abtract appears on articles that Collectonian has recently edited but had not previously edited himself (and especially when contrasted with the frequency this happens with other editors) has promoted some feelings of disquiet with Collectonian. It might be considered irrelevant as to the effect of the edit to the article when placed against Collectonians discomfort, and some people may consider withdrawing from such interactions especially in light of the minor nature of the edit. Again, I would comment that Collectonian makes no such request of other editors contributing to these articles, so it is not a case of WP:OWN.

As is obvious, I have a viewpoint in this matter. I was the sysop who originally blocked Abtract indefinitely, and then unblocked/reblocked to a finite period following an appeal. It was because of this previous history that Collectonian (and Sesshomaru - I forget if it was Abtract or another matter in which we first interacted) have subsequently requested my help. It is also because of this potential COI/bias that I requested a third party (Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)) develop a process to try resolve these issues, not once but twice. The first was stillborn as one party (Collectonian) would not sign up to a voluntary code; which is why the second was agreed to be imposed on the parties. I consider I have acted, as far as I am capable, impartially. Was my block an over reaction? I think not, but recognise that other people may consider it so. Have my actions been good faith attempts to resolve the issues? Damn right they have.

I am concerned, however, that these efforts from many parties are not effecting the desired results. There is still discord, disquiet and dispute over the goals that the restrictions were meant to resolve. I am going to request that the other supervising admin review recent comments here, and give their opinion on these matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

not quite arbitrary section break/Natalya's comments

I know in the long discussion of how these measures would work, we talked about different ways of allowing the parties to edit pages - either, not to be able to edit pages at all that the other party had edited in the recent past, or only being able to edit said articles in a totally unrelated fashion. While Abtract's edit that seemed to spawn this rediscussion does not seem harmful, without making clear exactly what editing is allowed, it is hard to say whether the edit was allowed or not.

Since (sadly) the "editing pages the others have been editing only in a totally unrelated fashion" does not seem to work, I offer up the following two suggestions for how to make the editing guidelines explicitly clear, which I thinks is necessary:

• The parties may not edit, at all, any page that the other party has been involved in editing recently (if we have to explicity define 'recently' also, we can, but if we don't have to, that would be lovely).
• The parties may only edit a page that the other party has been involved in editing recently if that edit falls under the exceptions to 3RR violations. (as these edits are pretty much as non-controversial as one can get)

-- Natalya 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I could support the first, as I believe Collectonian will agree. The second leaves open a case of wikistalking accusations when an editor reverts a number of vandal edits which happens to be also on one of the "other sides" most recently edited listing. nb. I am unblocking Abtract so that they may comment here - as well as there being no consensus for the block. (Block had already expired... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC))LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree on the first, its what I thought the agreement already included. The second, I share Less' concerns. It leaves an opening to ignore the first under the guise of making "good" edits. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It still seems to me that you are missing the point ... vague words will not work; what is needed is something precise and clear. My previous suggestion still seems good to me

• Objective. This set of remedies is designed to encourage and enable Abtract, Collectonian and Sesshomaru to use their talents constructively within the Wikipedia community without harmful interaction between them.
• Method. Interaction will be prohibited on certain topic pages and limited by time on others. On all pages, reverting or partial reverting by one of the other is prohibited.
• Applicable to Abtract. Abtract must not edit any disambiguaton page (of all types) and SIA starting with the letters N - Z; articles on topics closely associated with manga, anime, meerkats, films / movies and the United States; or any article where Collectonian or Sesshomaru had made one of the previous 50 edits within the last week; or any talk page thread which has been entered by Collectonian or Sesshomaru; or in any way which reverts or partially reverts a recent edit by Collectionan or Sesshomaru.
• Applicable to Collectonian and Seshomaru. Collectonian and Sesshomaru must not edit any disambiguation page (of all types) and SIA starting with the letters A - M; or any page on topics closely associated with card games / board games, physics / maths / science, Enid Blighton and the United Kingdom or any article where Abtract had made one of the previous 50 edits within the last week; or any talk page thread which has been entered by Abtract; or in any way which reverts or partially reverts a recent edit by Abtract.
• Applicable to all three parties. All three users are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and must adhere to it in future, particularly where the other is concerned. Access to personal talk pages to be by invitation only.
• Supervisers/enforcement. User:JHunterJ, User:LessHeard vanU and User:Natalya will supervise and have complete discretionary powers to advise, caution or block for up to 7 days; blocks of longer duration to be decided by at least two supervisors but hopefully this will not prove necessary.
• Duration. This set of remedies will be reviewed by the three supervisors (the three participants may comment only) in six months time with a view to relaxation. In any event it will cease automatically in 12 months.

I would add two extra clauses, one that allowed any two editors to revise the restrictions between them if they feel it would be to their mutual advantage; and one that allowed interaction on mos:dab and related pages. Abtract (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, LessHeard, I am sorry if you thought I was questioning your neutrality - I was not. I was suggesting that maybe you should get the matter reviewed (because the edit seemed harmless enough), which apparently, you had already embarked upon doing before I even suggested it. So, thanks for reading my mind, and now, you can get the hell out of my brain! LOL.

Secondy, I looked back over my interactions with Abstract and Sesshomaru, and while Abstract can be a large-sized pain in the ass at times, he does offer some good contributions. The same can be said for Collectionian - not the pain in te ass thing, but instead a thinner skin in an environment where rhino-hide or at least SPF is called for. I di not see Abstract's behavior as criminal or stalk-y, and I think its theatrics to call it that. Abstract doesn't get along with people and sometimes edit-wars - the same could be said for practically everyone in the project - all present company included. Does that excuse Abstract's being a dick? Of course not. If that's all anyone took away from my earlier post, I would suggest they read it again, and not just use the time I'm posting to think up a rebuttal.

I think both of the two alternatives suggested by Natalya are well-intentioned, but both are not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. While Abstract has offered something similar (I sometimes wonder if he is constructing an elaborate practical joke, but the post seems genuine), it is going to become a math project, and I am guessing there are few admins who are going to want to monitor Abstract all the time; they have better things to do. As well, both plans create a dangerous precedent of allowing one user in one area and not in another. While this has been used before, its only for very special cases of severe abuse. It's like using Mjolnir to swat a fly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So why not just leave us alone to get on with things? ... look back and ask yourselves "what is the actual problem?". If there is a problem right now, I don't see it ... Sess and I can get along I am sure (maybe the odd mismatch of views but hey this is real people we are discussing) and I haven't "interacted" with Coll for ages (I haven't even mentioned her intransigence over the bitch episode for a long time) and don't intend to do so again ... persuade her to be less vindictive and to stop worrying about minor edits in articles she owns and we will all be happy bunnies without the need for restrictions. Abtract (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't seem to leave things alone because problems keep getting brought up when we do. Arcayne, you bring up some good points. I feel like the objective of these requirements are to still allow all parties to continue editing. Perhaps, however, it would be better to get community input, since many heads are better than a few. Any thoughts on bringing it up at WP:AN? I know there's a lot of backstory, but we may be too involved now to make good decisions. -- Natalya 12:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK why not try this ... give us simple instructions like "Don't revert each other, assume good faith by each other, and only report real issues ... then check how it's going in a month. I'm sure we can all act like adults and manage to edit within the spirit of that for a month. Sess and I understand each other's differing views on dab editing, sadly Coll does not seem to understand my feeling of hurt at her treatment of me in the bitch episode, but I understand her desire to not have interactions with me. Let's give it a go with no official restrictions but a genuine attempt to make it work. I'm willing if they are ... Abtract (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, Abtract's new "idea" is never going to work. Been tried, multiple times and he never sticks to it. I want the stalking to stop. I want him to stay away from him. Is AN "higher" than AN/I? If so, I'm fine with a thread there. An RfC/U hasn't stopped it, nor have the 3-4 AN/I threads, nor all the blocks (which came from multiple admins and multiple admins have agreed he was stalking, Arcayne, as did Abtract himself so how is it "theatrics"). It seems Abtract has no intention of sticking to the official restrictions here as he now wants to get out of them yet again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well actually it's Sess who wants to get out of it not me, I am just trying to be helpful. And just to remind everyone that Sess and Coll were critised as much as I was at the rfc. Abtract (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Primarily by new users, and it was not repeated in the multiple AN/Is, which is why YOU were blocked. If you want to "be helpful" you'd quit acting like this and would have just left me alone months ago instead of continuing to do this stuff over and over again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly have I done that upsets you so much? It would be helpful to me if you compared the level of hurt you believe I have caused you with that which you caused me here. You may also like to compare your many personal attacks on me with the absence of such from me. You want to take it further, bring it on dear. Abtract (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can't understand how being stalked and harassed for months on end is "upsetting" nothing I can say will make a difference. Nor, do I think you actually care. You obviously get some sort of pleasure out of all this, and continuing to proclaim I caused you some hurt over that episode and that it somehow justifies your actions is just plain ridiculous. That's always your excuse, that you are "hurt" over that and somehow it makes it okay to cause me months of stress, anxiety, and even fear (yes, enjoy knowing you did that too). And yes, you have made personal attacks, you just like to wrap them in false politeness. And that's all I'm saying to you. I don't want to deal with you, talk with you, see you on my watchlist. I want to forget you exist, period. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is absolutely typical of your attitude throughout this sad little affair ... poor little you has done nothing wrong despite the evidence to the contrary ... being heavily critisised by others is not enough. Your many vicious attacks on me have been quite unfounded. I pity you dear. Abtract (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, I haven't done anything wrong (and funny how you pretend you haven't done anything wrong either). Nor have I been "heavily criticized" by anyone, nor was I blocked multiple times over this "sad little affair" that you started and you keep going, nor have I made any unfounded "vicious attacks." But whatever, I'll await to hear from our admins here as to whether we're going to AN, or will try a better worded set of restrictions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Okay, that will quite enough from the both of you. Collectonoian, I am not sure why you feel that Abstract's choosing to edit in articles is a stalking of you. Consider for the briefest of moments that you are reading far, far too much into Abstracts posts. I agree that his smarter than thu attitude makes me want to pimp slap him, but that might be part of his personality, which can no more change than you can alter your gender or belief system. Continuing to attack him, as you are doing here, is unacceptable, If you cannot restrain yourself, I will file the ANI for personal attacks on you myself.

That said, Abstract, it is clear that Collectonian is on a slow and unremitting burn about you, so perhaps you can take that Big Bag of Clever and find someplace else in this great big wiki-en where she is not. You seem to have a lot of interests outside the Venn diagram of those you share with Collectonian. Her behavior has been completely dramatic and unacceptable here, but it is clear that her usually equanimous demeanor was distorubed by your likely intentionally sly edits in an article she hangs out in. My advice is to stay the heck away from her, and she shall have no behavior of yours with which to rush off to an admin and complain about. We are none of us perfect, and you need to learn to count yourself among that number. Arrogance is often a very poor tact to take here in Wikipedia, as intentions are very hard to read otherwise.

Natalya, I am not sure ANI is appropriate here, at least for us to get involved in. If Collectonian is only going to be satisfied by Abstract's blood, let her file it and reap the consequences of her own behavior here. If Abstract is willing to simply stay the hell away from Collectonian, and Collectonian does the same for Abstract, the problem between them is resolved, I think. ANI in situations like this are only going to result in one or both individuals getting blocked, and our time is better spent elsewhere. I am sure the fireworks and the Drama would be entertaining, but we have better things to do than be used as proxy participants in their unresolvable conflict. Collectonian wants Abstract banned; that much is clear. Abstract is bargaining. Unless they are willing to simply avoid each other, nothing we do, short of banning is going to do the slightest bit of good. The ball is in their court; I don't know about you, but if they cannot agree to even that, AN/I isn't going to have any better solution that doesn't cost us one or both editors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

He himself admitted he was wikistalking months ago, and he continues to do it. Please don't imply I'm making it up or imaging it. You, of all people, should know he does this as you certified the original RfC/U against him which included links to his multiple admissions that he does it.[17][18][19] Frankly I don't care if he is banned or not. As long as he leaves me alone, I don't care if he edits elsewhere as long as he just stays the hell away from me. I already avoid him, he is the one who follows me, and only him. When he popped up in an article I edit, usually soon after I've edited, I reported it per the agreement. Alas, no one said I would get attacked for being too "dramatic" for doing what the agreement said, letting someone know when one violated it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is why I support Natalya's first option, in particular regard to Abtract and Collectonian;

  The parties may not edit, at all, any page that the other party has been involved in editing recently...

  with perhaps 50 edits/two weeks being the definition. It stops them coming into contact. If Abtract and Sesshomaru want to work informally to Abtracts formula (and Collectonian notes Abtracts areas of interests), then it simply means they don't report each other. The original restriction remains, with Natalya's new wording, so that any future disagreement can be resolved back to those principles (it may avoid a party trying to redefine what the informal agreement means). Also, I don't see any reason for a time limit - if it works it stays. As regards being thin skinned (or not) I might not have looked recently but I'm pretty sure this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and not those with particular epidermis qualities. I think this is what we are aiming for.

As regards bringing this to a wider review, I think there have been various postings to the admin boards in the past and what we are doing here is the result of that; I don't see what taking it back yet again will achieve. If we can't sort it here, then I think we are left with WP:RfAR - since this is exactly what that body was created for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's try that(WP:RfAR). Abtract (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which, RfAR or Natalya's rewording/informal agreement between you and Sess? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm good to go with with the new wording added, and with the 50 edits and/or two weeks being the guideline. To confirm, that would mean if an edit was done in either the last 50 edits or within 2 weeks (i.e. more than 50 have been done recently so check back 2 weeks worth of edits), right? I wonder if its considered "thin skinned" that you can see most of my major veins and trace them from neck to foot. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That would make your skin translucent. Thin-skinned referred to the increased likelihood to take umbrage at a statement. The plan seems reasonable. I hope it works. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was being a little facetious :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So was I (heh). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Would one need make an appointment? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Another editor asked me an opinion about an issue at Agatha Christie's Poirot on my talk page. I looked at the article talk page for a discussion of the issue and didn't see none, but noticed some initial discussion points were missing headers so I added some (a pet peeve of mine that I fix on any talk page when I first visit). It wasn't until after I returned to the article and checked the history to look for the content the other editor was questioning that I saw that Abtract was an editor on that article. I had checked the talk history and his name wasn't there. I noted to the editor that I couldn't comment on the issue because of this and removed the page from my watchlist, but do I need to self revert my talk page edits to be in compliance with the agreement? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so far as I'm concerned ... indeed edit the article if you want. And just in passing there is no "agreement", simply an imposed restriction (the most recent discussion was never added so it is as it was initially). Abtract (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Abtract - the restriction is regarding pages; You edited the talkpage, and he has previously edited the article. No foul, no penalty. However, it is appropriate to note any such questions - just so we can keep the matter clear in our collective heads - and where possible try to avoid the same articles. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Also, is Abtract correct in that the second restrictions are not active, and we are still on the first ones? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as no admin has circulated them as being part of the restrictions; personally, I am trying not to make these things into chains, and as long as the parties are not upsetting the other(s) then I am not Placing Ye Greate Seal upon new wordings. If it becomes an issue not only will they be incorporated but as everyone is aware of them then they can be retroactively applied (I think it will have to be a huge conflict, or one that has a majority of admins agreeing to implement). The goal of this is to get all three named accounts contributing to WP without upsetting any of the others - blocks are then only productive in that stopping one account from editing allows the other(s) who would otherwise not be inclined to to do so. In short; no, but they will be as soon as is needed - but lets hope it won't be necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't accept "retroactively", and I'm quite sure that upon mature reflection you will realise you didn't mean it. Abtract (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If it means the application of penalties for actions taken before a restriction was incorporated, then I've got to disagree too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the wording and meaning of the further conditions are already known, and it is simply an academic exercise to include them and circulate them to the parties, then knowingly acting against the spirit of the further restrictions and claiming that "they were not in force" is manifestly acting in bad faith - which is disruptive and therefore sanctionable in its own right. As I said, I am trying not to add in every minute detail (and have tacitly acknowledged that any working formula independently arrived at by any of the parties is allowable, even if it "breaks" the wording of the restriction) as recognition of the preference for good faith to exist between the editors. However, if it is the case that any one individual is going to be allowed "one chance" of seriously disrupting the purpose of the restrictions on the basis that the wording has not covered that specific action then I had best incorporate any and all further wordings from the previous discussions into the restrictions and circulate them. I had hoped that all concerned would be mature enough to work with and through the general wording provided, but if that is going to be (potentially) gamed then perhaps it would be best to clarify precisely the terms and likely consequences of violating the letter of the restrictions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The wording and meaning of possible suggested further conditions which have not been agreed upon are already known. Knowingly acting against them is not bad faith, since we don't know if they are correct; a lot of suggestions have been thrown around. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Less appears to be using many words above to obstruct his clear violation of the normal rules of fair play by in effect saying he was right even though he was wrong, I have lost faith in his ability to remain neutral in this matter. I would like him removed from the oversight of the restrictions ... this is especially important as he has unilaterally adopted the lead role. Of course it would be easier if he was simply to resign from the role. Abtract (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, As Usual

I guess he just couldn't resist stalking and responding to my contribs any longer[20]. He did this despite this guy's talk page being locked after Tree 'uns 5 was INDEF blocked for vandalizing a policy page, but Abtract followed and welcomed him anyway as if he had just gotten "on the wrong side of someone." Now, per my understanding, as part of the agreement, Abtract was supposed to stop stalking me through my contribs and he was not supposed to do this sort of thing. I suspect he will now argue, though, that since I didn't "edit" the user page but only left warnings on the talk page, that its allowed. If it isn't a direct violation of the agreement, its certainly attempting to get around it in his usual fashion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It has just gone 1:30am here, and I was just whacking a few vandals before turning in... I will properly review this and options over the weekend. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and have a good night. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Requests for arbitration#Abtract and Collectonian (and Sesshomaru)

"Please note that I have made a RfAR here with you as a named party. You are invited to make a statement in respect of the request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)"

Example of notice sent to all parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for your consideration. :) I've given my own summary there of what's happened since I came onto the scene (my evidence, basically) which explains what steps have been taken and why ArbCom is needed - to finish this off for once and for all, hopefully. ;) Garlands and flowers are nice, and we'd be really lucky to get them...although instead, we'll probably end up with 1 long month. :( But on the bright side, NYB sees no ambiguity and has voted to accept already, even before I posted my statement. Hopefully the other arbitrators follow suit. :) Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) Hmm, things are going slower than expected over there - most of the arbs must've been off for the weekend. Just a minor correction; the voluntary restriction was placed by myself (or else, I would have had no reason to be annoyed with J for terminating it) - but J agreed to enforce it, starting with the complete unblock on 20 July. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RfAR about Abtract

I grow quite weary of reading about these trivial matters. What has he done now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting me know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just as a suggestion, using links for anons in this way 86.44.28.52, 86.44.20.40 may make it easier to review. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, and so done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the following. If you agree, please sign below the second set of +'s. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

+ + + + +

By agreement of a majority of the involved administrators, the restrictions here have been amended in the following way, and come into effect at the conclusion of this arbitration case:

Important Notice: These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to further amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Matters between Abtract and Collectonian shall be handled according to the restrictions/remedies enacted by the Arbitration Committee.
• Abtract and Sesshomaru are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. This restriction may only be enforced if violations are reported directly by either Abtract or Sesshomaru - it does not apply if violations are reported by any other editor(s).
• Further remedies concerning Abtract, Collectonian and/or Sesshomaru may be enacted to include banning interactions with any other user, if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.
• The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should any of these 3 users edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), Natalya (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), and JHunterJ (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

+ + + + +

Provisional (Bullet 3 needs to have Collectonian removed as a party, see Bullet 1 - and thus Bullet 4 needs to be changed from 3 parties to 2. Also, do we acknowledge A and S's "working agreement" currently being acted upon?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LHvU's question - do they not now have a working arrangment that does involve contact? Or is the working agreement the separation of the disambiguation page. Thanks for the clarification, -- Natalya 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re bullet 3, 1 and 4; the Committee's current proposals handle problems that occur between Abtract and Collectonian. Based on my own (perhaps unfortunate) experiences, even though we think a problem user is handled, another user can emerge (managing to cause the exact same problems for affected users). Should this occur, I don't think Collectonian should have to go through so much trouble again, and I prefer that the community try to enact remedies concerning Collectonian and another user, again with ArbCom as a last resort. That was my rationale for these tweaks. However, if you'd both prefer avoiding it, and going directly to ArbCom, I don't have a problem in changing it accordingly.

Re: working agreement, I'm not sure of the exact details of the arrangement so was reluctant to include it at this point. It's ambiguous; I think it was declared that the restriction between S and A may only be enforced if either of them reported the other, and that otherwise, they can interact with one another? I'm not sure if there's an additional agreement concerning how disambiguation pages are to be separated between them (if at all). Based on arbs comment at workshop/pd page, I also think there's preference for those restrictions stay in place. However, we should probably get on the same page before passing this point. After that, perhaps it can be reworded to note that both parties came to an arrangement at [link] where this restriction may only be enforced if either party reports the other...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; while there was an original attempt to treat all parties equally, it has become the case - supported by ArbCom - that resolution revolves around Abtract. Any problem that recurs for Collectonian (and as a vandal fighter, this may not be infrequent) that is not Abtract related should, IMO, be treated separately. This may include amending these restrictions to include said editor, but maybe we should leave that as a penultimate option rather than having it made - we should not be given reason for not trying less restrictive methods of resolving issues.

As for the "working agreement" - which we need not detail, but revolves around the two editors not reporting each other for violations of these restrictions, I do believe that it needs mentioning so any third party unaware of A & S's circumstances does not needlessly warn or report per these restrictions. As ever, I wish to see all parties contribute usefully to the encyclopedia with as little hinderance as possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that less restrictive methods should always be tried. However, I would not ever consider the after-effects of vandal fighting to be a type of harassment that would fall under my explanation above. I'm thinking of something (unfortunately) far more sophisticated. Enacting further remedies will always be an option, hence the word 'may', but I think it needs to be included to confirm that although the Committee have handled what happens between Abtract and Collectonian, this does not mean we cannot enact further remedies involving Collectonian and another user in that manner. If there's no issue for 6 months, we could probably drop that bit altogether. Additionally, the edit-warring concerns were just over a month ago - we concluded that the blame could not be on any one party for mindlessly reverting, with/without harassment. I'd like this caution (intended for the long term, rather than the 1 month short term) to stay for at least 3 months, so bullet 4 needs to include all parties. (I did not add evidence in the case on those edit-warring concerns because that is something we can resolve confidently. The issue was with the harassment and wikilawyering.)

That said, agree completely with the second bit, which I think clears up my doubt. I've amended it, so let me know if that bit is done. Natalya, hopefully that clears your question up too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

With your explanation re the wording regarding the parties and the amendment of the part in respect of Abtract and Sesshomaru I am happy to sign up to this wording. I shall do so as soon as I am logged onto a secure computer under my sysop account. LHvU (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC) (This is my non-admin editing account.)

Thank you for your assistance as always. Seeing you have the agreement below, I won't repaste the notification I've sent - but this is what I put up at WP:AN. [21] Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amended restriction

+ + + + +

By agreement of a majority of the involved administrators, the restrictions here have been amended in the following way, and come into effect at the conclusion of this arbitration case:

Important Notice: These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to further amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Matters between Abtract (talk · contribs) and Collectonian (talk · contribs) shall be handled according to the restrictions/remedies enacted by the Arbitration Committee.
• Abtract (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. This restriction may only be enforced if violations are reported directly by either Abtract or Sesshomaru - it does not apply if violations are reported by any other editor(s).
• Further remedies concerning Abtract, Collectonian and/or Sesshomaru may be enacted to include banning interactions with any other user, if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.
• The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should any of these 3 users edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

+ + + + +

Agreed LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Natalya 11:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Abtract's recent edits

I think the user page comment is directed at Collectonian. I would ask him to change the user page and if not done voluntarily then I would do it. I rarely block, but it you think it is needed to prevent an edit war, do it before. Otherwise, you can wait to see how the situation plays out. You know more about the situation that I do, I trust your judgment. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

I got that message again, but there are still things I don't get about the interaction part. Does this suggest that Abtract would be blocked? Or would I be blocked since I edited the page long after Abtract did? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming the agreement between Sees and me over-rides the restriction ... in other words, if we don't complain, no action will be taken. Abtract (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to complain Abtract, but why did you label that as "accidental" when the edit was intentional? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was being polite since it was obviously incorrect (only one link per line) I assumed it must have been a mistake. Abtract (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You made that ridiculous assumption because you so chose to, not because it was an honest mistake. Does it occur to you that it was a red link which met the requirements of MOS:DABRL? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down ... the section you point to refers to the first mention of the term being disambiguated not to subsequent redlinks after a bluelink. But if you want to change it back please do so. Abtract (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am "calm". Anyway, I've restored the edit, but would still like to hear LessHeard vanU's thoughts. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, Abtract, why did you mark it for cleanup [22]? You just said it was ok to change it back did you not [23]? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What I said was change it back if you want to, that doesn't mean it is correct just that I am not going to fight you because we are getting on so well I don't want to upset that (or you). As I said earlier, it is clearly incorrect and, by attracting attention to it, I anticipate that another editor will express the same view. Abtract (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And as you will see, SlackerMom agrees with me. Abtract (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Sesshomaru (and Abtract); while the restriction between you and Abtract remains in place, per the new wording, it recognises that the two of you have an understanding and if neither of you report each other then there will be no action under the restriction - this way the restriction serves as a mechanism to keep the two of you from edit warring and acting disruptively on articles/dab pages the two of you edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Collectonian, on any page in Wikipedia; harass or wikistalk Collectonian such as by editing pages that Collectonian has recently edited; or make uncivil comments about or personal attacks upon any user.

These restrictions imposed upon Abtract shall be interpreted in a reasonable fashion so as to allow Abtract to continue with appropriate editing while preventing any further harassment of Collectonian. Any attempts to "game the system" or "wikilawyer" the details of the restrictions are unwelcome. Should Abtract violate the restrictions imposed upon him, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged here. Collectonian is urged to continue to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on October 16 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)