Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract

Abtract (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Cause of concern

Abtract seems to engage in both slow and rapid edit warring regularly on multiple articles, often related, skirting the 3RR policy while continuing refusal to desist and discuss. Numerous warnings left, but only one block[1] at this time due primarily to being given chances to correct and pages being protected instead. He seems to be gaming the system with his stopping early to avoid a block. Recent examples:

Hp 1, 2, 3 4 - slow edit war
HP 1, 2 - stopped after warning
HP (disambiguation) 1, 2- only two before article protected
Bleach (disambiguation)
Bleach 1, 2, 3 - warned and stopped
Bleach (manga) 1, 2, 3 - warned and stopped
YuYu Hakusho 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Aladdin (disambiguation) 1, 2, 3, 4

3RR warnings he's received from multiple editors since December (both regular and templated): [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20][21][22][23][24]

And two 3RR reports filed: 10 April 2008 (no violation though several commented that he should be blocked), 20 May 2008 (Warned) (said warning).

He has also shown incivility against other editors, particularly User:Sesshomaru with accusations of stalking[25] [26] [27], referring to him as "the single most awkward, boring and up yourself editor that it has been my displeasure to meet in my time on wp"[28], and has called him a maniac in a {{help me}}[29]. An AN/I was filed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive391#Complete rudeness from User:Abtract in which Abstract said he would not make insults anymore. He has made what appears to be an attack page [30] against Sesshomaru, though he may possibly consider it a potential RfC of his own if the footer is a possible indicator.

Has told other editors to "stop badgering him" when they asked him to respect an arbitration in progress[31], has been warned about his "snarky edit summaries" [32] (in reference to several edit summaries here), and told an admin who was trying to correct him to "grow up and act like an admin"[33]. When warned about civility, he responded with "intriguing; do you have an incivility meter?"[34]. He's falsely edit warred by calling undoing of his disruptions as vandalism.[35][36][37].

Several editors, including User:LessHeard vanU (who attempted arbitration), User:Redrocket, User:AnmaFinotera, User:Paul Erik, and User:Arcayne have tried to talk to him, explain how he is being disruptive and violating policies and guidelines, and offer corrective advice. He generally responds to warnings with brush offs, flippancy or sarcasm, and "thanks for stopping by" comments. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

This is the second RfC against Abtract, with the first being deleted for uncertified within the necessary time. Since that RfC, Abtract created an "alter-ego" User:Abstract. He has not used it to perform any edits yet, but curious as to why it was done at all. 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC): Abtract basically has admitted to "wikistalking" here [49] and continues to edit war after the filing of this RfC in his. I undid an undiscussed and WP:NPOV change to WP:RS. Abtract followed behind me and began reverting it repeatedly to goad an edit war and try to get me blocked.(1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert) He followed this with a retaliatory 3RR report [50], for which he was blocked 24 hours for gaming the system [51].

Added 04:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC): Abtract appears to be keeping an attack piece on Sesshomaru in his user space at[52]. Initially, I declined to mention it when I found it while starting this RfC as I first though he might be planning his own RfC, however in looking at the history, I see he started this page back on March 28th, making me question its actual use. He only added the RfC stuff at the bottom after I first suggested an RfC be filed against him (with the first one filed near the same time).

Added 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC): Abtract has begun making some canvas attempts, making a non-neutral and falsely stated request for someone to come weigh in here[53]. This resulted in the canvassed editor leaving an inappropriate message on my talk page[54], though on Abtract's edit page the same editor agrees that Abtract has been "has been uncollaborative and less than circumspect"[55]. Abtract also modified my certification[56] despite the "bitch" disambiguation having absolutely nothing to do with neither the editor he canvased nor it being a major component of this RfC/U. Abtract is continuing to follow myself and Sesshomaru around to either revert or comment on our edits.[57][58] He admits to doing this here[59] and those he is doing this too feel that is now blatantly wiki-stalking just to harass us.

Added 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC): More of Abtract following other editors to harass: [60][61][62][63][64][65]

Added 08:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC): Abtract was blocked 31 hours for continuing to harass despite multiple warnings from administrators, including a final warning that he ignored by continuing to harass through Meerkat Manor (an article I took to FA and FT)[66]. During the block, 2 editors left messages on Abtract's talk page asking him to stop this harassment and reevaluate what he is doing.[67][68][69]. An outside admin reviewed his unblock request and denied it and affirmed that the block was appropriate.[70].

Upon returning from the block, Abtract again began stalking Sesshomaru[71][72], left me a sarcastic note on my talk page[73] titled "Bitch of an edit", and began attacking Meerkat Manor, putting false {{fact}} tags in the lead, and causing an edit war that resulted in the page being fully protected for a short time. I filed an ARV against Abtract, but it was moved to AN/I by an admin.[74] Abtract responded by filing a 3RR against me, which resulted in no action due to the existing AN/I report[75] and . During this stage Abtract began referring to me as the "wikibonked editor" and throwing the word "wikibonk" in almost every statement made about me, in a seeming intent to insult, or imply I had some sort of disorder (this AFTER I removed a wikibonked notice from my user page). At the AN/I, the administrator who moved the report there and closed the 3RR report confirmed that Abtract's edits to Meerkat Manor were "extremely dubious" and noted that if Abtract restored the tags again, he should be blocked. On Abtract's talk page, the same admin, and another uninvolved editor, again attempted to discuss things with Abtract and point out the problems with what he's doing.[76]. Abtract then put out a "call for assistance"[77] claiming that he is the victim of a "vendetta" and that's its all Sesshomaru and I's fault that he is acting this way. His note carefully ignores much of the evidence noted here, and falsely claims that we never interacted before the episode over his edit summary on an edit to Bitch (disambiguation). He also noted that until both of us apologize to him "gracefully", he will continue these actions. Again, an admin told him that he needed to just stop stalking and harrassing, which only he is doing,[78], and Abtract responded by complaining the response given wasn't what he wanted.[79] During this exchange, he stalked Sesshomaru some more.[80] and, despite having again been told by MULTIPLE people to get away from Meerkat Manor, immediately posted a note after me on the talk page.[81]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

Desired outcome

Abtract to receive an appropriate block for his most receive behaviors. For him to agree to to avoid any and all edit warring in the future, stop being disruptive, and be required to use talk page discussions to settle disputes. For him to agree not revert anything other than true vandalism more than once before engaging in discussion, and this one-revert limit to be enforceable with a block. Abtract to cease all accusations of stalking and insults against User:Sesshomaru, and to avoid anymore contact with or interactions with as much as possible. Abtract to stop being flippant with other editors, including him to stop ignoring warnings and corrections he is given. If felt helpful, Abtract agreeing to mentoring.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC) [82] [83] [84] [85][reply]

Where in all of this did you "try and fail to resolve the dispute"? Can no-one else see the ludicrousness of Coll's posturing? Abtract (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne (talk · contribs) - I, too have had more than a few difficulties with this editor, and am frankly surprised that this demeanor hasn't softened over time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here and here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) - this editor has a bad case of incivility all around (especially with me) and appears to harass for the sake of it, usually by performing an edit page to a page I or Collectonian have just edited (such as at Gary Oak, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Talk:Chibi Vampire). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words pot and kettle spring to mind. Abtract (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, Abtract removes most (if not all) of my messages from his talk page in bad faith, usually leaving an uncivil edit summary: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], and [91]. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Sess, that was a tad unfair not to mention that you have been removing my messages from your talk page long before I did the same to you ... indeed you have been my mentor in this and told me it was fine to look at contributions to correct errors ... nor did you see fit to mention that you followed me (into the Zs for example) long before I thought to follow you. Abtract (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing messages from one's talk page (while assuming good faith) is one thing, blatantly reverting the message while insulting the editor is another. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should know buster, you have removed enough awkward messages [92] [93] [94] [95] three times [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]. Here is a more recent one [105] which would have annoyed me had it been my edit that was removed. I understand that this is not against the rules but imho it is a sign that we are dealing with an insecure person here, which may explain some of his behaviour. It is especially interesting that he "removes" a lot in view of his stated "Prefer keeping all all discussions in one page" when it suits him.[106]

Abtract (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

Abtract (talk · contribs) I object strongly to Collectonian starting this action and stating that she has tried to help resolve the dispute. The first of these supposed "helps" was just a warning (not very helpful to an editor known to be a little touchy atm). The second was a completely unjustified warning which she must eventually have twigged to be so but just went on and on - also not very helpful to say the least - I used the word "bitch" in an edit summary concerning the page Bitch (disambiguation). The last two "helps" were also warnings ... are warnings counted as "help"? I doubt it. IMHO she has not attempted to help in any way, she has simply taken sides, therefore she cannot be counted as one of the "two editors who have tried and failed to resolve the dispute".

It is not clear to me what "the dispute" actually is apart from an overenthusiastic use of the revert tool - in common with Sess, JHJ, Arcayne and indeed Collectonian to name but a few (it takes two to tango) - and that I accused Sess of stalking, By "stalking" I mean that he checks on my contributions and edits where I have just been - this he readily admits - and which has continued. In addition I made a somewhat injudicious set of personal remarks about Sess some time ago, for which I am genuinely sorry (cos I guess he is probably a good guy) and have apologised - indeed I have attempted three times to make the peace with him and each time my offers have been rejected, woe is me. As you will know, I have just been blocked for 24 hours which genuinely puzzles me; I reverted three times in a content dispute, Collectonian reverted four times, yet I was found guilty of edit warring and Coll was not even warned by the admin concerned. Somehow I was at fault for cunningly goading her into an edit war ... wow, I should be so clever.

I am not going to answer point by point all the rather petty accusations above, I simply ask you to look at them as a whole and ask yourself "Is Abtract any more guilty than Sess or Collectonian?" Look particularly at points 32 through 42 above to see the quality of the accusations - I stand by all those edits. Another hint; when looking at Sess's talk page to discover what kind of person he is, bear in mind that he has removed all comments he doesn't like (there have been many) so you will have to trawl through the history.

User:JHunterJ makes a sensible suggestion which I positively welcome and would happily comply with provided Collectonian is included, provided Collectonia and Sess are not allowed to act as a pair (I think you can see how unfair that would be, and provided all parties agree. It is very close to an offer I made to Sess some time ago but which he rejected then, so I am not very hopeful.

Unless anyone has specific questions, I'm afraid I haven't kept as good a log as Collectonian (probably a good job I didn't or it would have been called (quoting from above) "an attack piece on Sesshomaru in his user space at[107]", so that's all I have to say.

Good luck with your considerations. Abtract (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if you read these:

[108] where I made a generous apology to Sess and was rejected.

[109] where Arcayne tried to help and Sess made me laugh, promised to "stay away" ... but of course didn't.

[110] when Sess first tacitly admitted to stalking me.

[111] where Sess advised me of his intention to continue stalking me (and User:Jerzy) ... and made me laugh again.

[112] shows that Collect is not beyond reproach.

[113] (read to the middle of the thread) shows why I fear Sess and Coll acting as a tag team.

[114] the uncensored "bitch of a warning" ... quoted above as one of the times Coll "tried to resolve the problem". Please read it carefully and in context.

Abtract (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Additional views

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

View by Zara1709

I couldn't help noticing this, since I got Dbachmanns talk page still on my watchlist. What's wrong with you guys? Apparently the initial content dispute was about such questions as whether Harry Potter should be linked at HP (disambiguation) [115] or whether Hp, standing for Horsepower, should be capitalized [116]. There might be some actually serious issues, but it's not my task to provide diffs for them, the person starting the rfc should do that. But if an RFC for user conduct should be necessary concerning such trivial matters, then we would barely get to writing an encyclopaedia for all the time we'd had to spent on talk pages and rfcs. Unless a diff is brought forward which shows a disagreement about one of the 3 core policies of WP:NPOV, wp:Verifiability or wp:NOR, you should seriously consider not to waste the time of other editors with this. If you are not able to solve a trivial dispute yourself, well, then WP isn't the right place for you. Generally, this goes for both sides. On the other hand, if User:Abtract has indeed been stalked by User:Sesshomaru, and Sess has admitted than himself (again, no diff provided), well, then User:Sesshomaru would need to be reminded of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and anyway, after the last comment of User:AnmaFinotera at User talk:Dbachmann, I am inclined to doubt his ability to evaluate these kinds of conflicts adequately. A sentence like: "sigh, the WP:CIVIL-Nazis are at it again. Some people are trying to write an encyclopedia here. Oh criminy, I just called somebody a nazi, I think my days on Wikipedia are over now." [117] is obviously indented polemical, which is apparent from the use of sarcasm as a stylistic device. And although I wouldn't personally agree with the polemical use of the word "Nazi" you can't forbid polemics because of Wikipedia:Civility, really. On the contrary, politeness (understood as coming from the same root as politics) would demand that you may react with you own polemic, and that you don't resort to 'legal' measures like "surreal user warnings" [118]. (Damn, I can't believe that I just wasted an hour writing this.) Zara1709 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Idag (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abtract looks to be easily wound up and incivil at times, especially in edit summaries, but dragging this to RfC and AN/I seems like there's an aspect of tattletale-ing going on - an effort to get Abtract heavily censured without even trying to come to some sort of consensus. This argument has devolved into something about the editors, not about the content. I would suggest focussing on whether or not edits are good edits, not who they were done by and when. CredoFromStart ^talk 16:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very sensible. 86.44.28.52 (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — an hour well spent, Zara — Athaenara ✉ 23:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Atemperman (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by 86.44.28.52

Here's the most the useful part of Abtract's apology in April:

In future, I will not ... make any personal remarks about him/her, or revert any edit made by him/her without discussion and good justification; I will also attempt to avoid editing pages to which Sesshomaru has made a significant contribution, should I find one. I would appreciate it if Sesshomaru were to make an equally generous new beginning but my apology is not dependent on that. [119]

This apology was rejected. [120]

Since then, Abtract has several times offered to say away from Sesshomaru if Sesshomaru does the same, including on this very page (with Collectionion now added). This offer has not been taken up.

Therefore I think it's fair to say that the part of this RfC pertaining to Abtract's behaviour with regard to Sesshomaru—which seems to be the catalyst for its being brought—has little merit.

As I edit from a dynamic IP, some account of my interaction with these editors is warranted. I have never interacted with Abtract, to the best of my knowledge. My interactions with Sesshomaru amount, as far as I know, to one recent minor revert, and two posts some months ago regarding some inappropriate actions in a minority of his dealings with IP editors, which have now stopped. [121] [122] (However, I do have a belief that Sesshomaru's collegiality and respect for others tends to flow in confirmation to an imagined hierarchy of editors: "upwards" to admins and experienced users, and "sideways" to allies. I think that's relevant here.)

Sesshomaru and Abtract should stay away from each other, Abtract should follow WP:BRD (as should we all), and Sesshomaru should be more quick to resolve these disputes, and perhaps more let stand, and engage more with, good faith edits to both articles and his talk page. That's all. 86.44.28.52 (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorse — Athaenara ✉ 23:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Atemperman (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

1RR

1) Abtract, Sesshomaru, and JHunterJ agree to a 1RR policy with respect to the others, and agree to take it up on the Talk page if reverted themselves. See WP:1RR, WP:BRD -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I guess I should have responded here rather than above. This is a sensible suggestion which I positively welcome and would happily comply with provided Collectonian is included, provided Coll and Sess are not allowed to act as a pair (I think you can see how unfair that would be, and provided all parties agree. It is very close to an offer I made to Sess some time ago but which he rejected then, so I am not very hopeful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs) 18:04, May 22, 2008

While I agree that the idea has merit, Abtract is not even following the idea while the RfC/U is on-going, so I have doubts as to whether he'd actually follow it afterwards unless its made a blockable offense to violate 1RR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we give him the opportunity to succeed or fail. As there is no agreement in place, he likely doesn't feel bound by it. From the comments on his talk page, if the other parties agree to 1RR, he will, too. His pride (which is just as big as yours and Sess - and mine too) isn't going to make him act in a way that you and the others aren't going to agree to. I say everyone agree to it here, and I am willing to bet a shiny new Euro that Abstract will follow the agreement. He seems the personality type to enjoy specific boundaries. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His past history indicates otherwise. He has not keep any agreements he has previously made. He's had more than enough chances to change his behavior, but has grown even worse. He's also already been given specific boundaries, by multiple admins, and he refuses to stick to them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Collectonian, and can sympathize. However, this RfC is to specifically address the issue at present. If y'all agree to this, and he screws up and violates this agreement, his ass is grass, and this agreement serves as fuel for the lawnmower. Furthermore, he will have no defense whatsoever, and can be blockety-block-blocked 'til the cows come home. Forget the past and deal with the now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just an issue of 1RR. The stalking and harassment that is a far bigger and most important issue. He's already said he will not agree to stop it, and even as you are arguing for this here for him, he's still stalking and harassing Sesshomaru.[123][124][125] What happens if we all agree to 1RR, and uses that 1RR to run around and continue harassing and stalking by following our contribs and reverting? I don't see how agreeing to 1RR will fix this. . -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why I have to agree to a 1rr, and I still fail to see why JHunterJ believe this limit should go for the three of us. Now that I've pondered about it, Abtract should be the only one who should be effected, as he is usually one to edit war, and never ask questions. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Sess, while it only takes one to be dumb enough to start an edit-war, it often takes two or more to continue it. Abstract seems to have admitted that he screwed up. You clearly have difficulty dealing with the guy, so maybe in those articles where you and (s)he interact, what would the problem be in applying a 1RR to your interactions with one another? If a compromise is to be found, it has to apply to everyone; such is the very nature of compromise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Collectonian put it nicely [126], I refuse to believe a 1rr agreement will be any good here. If there's anyone this should be endorsed to, it's Abtract, not me or J. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his behavior whilst this was all going on, I am inclined to agree. I just wanted to make sure he was given a fair shake. It looks like he blew it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm since there is no agreement, I can hardly be accused of breaking it ... once there is an agreement by all sides, I will abide by it. It may be worth noting that I have made three attempts at a solution, all of which have been spurned ... I still await a genuine move forward by Sess or Coll, but I am no longer holding my breath. Abtract (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you try out the proposed 1RR without waiting for them to agree to it? It can only do you good, and its a pretty good exercise for learning how to seek resolution within an article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, thank you Arcayne. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Abtract could benefit by self-imposing a 1RR without waiting. Similarly, Sesshomaru could benefit by self-imposing a 1RR without waiting. As could I, and as could Collectonian. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing so since my block. Abtract (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hi, I am coming here as an editor who just warned Abtract for edit-warring against consensus at Viam agnoscere veritatis. Based on a quick glance at this dispute, which overall is with editors that I am not familiar with, I still have to agree with the idea of 1RR. However, how long would it be in place? Generally it's good to put an expiration date on these things. --El on ka 03:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. 1 month? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End to the following and harassment

2) Abtract to stop his self-admitted wiki-stalking and harassment for both the duration of this Rfc and afterwards. He agrees to stop checking the contribs of the editors he is in dispute with to revert their edits and throwing in comments in discussions just to oppose the editors. Basically, Abtract stay away from the editors he has a disagreement with and leave them alone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would be quite happy to agree to this provided Sess and Collect agree also and provided they do not act as a pair in opposing me. We would need to define "stay away from" quite carefully; I guess you mean something like I suggested to Sess some time ago (splitting dab pages 2:1 in his favour) ... we could include you in this and it would be very fair then ... maybe I agree to limit my edits to articles beginning with A - I and Sess/Collect will limit themselves to articles beginning with J - Z. We could add a sub-clause that said we could ask for dispensation for articles in which we have a special interest. At the time of my earlier offer to Sess he said it was "a silly idea" so I am not hopeful here either. Abtract (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This does need to be phrased less one-sidedly. If a "restraining order" is desired (which I don't), then it should apply to Sesshomaru->Abtract, Collectonian->Abtract, Abtract->Sesshomaru, and Abtract->Collectonian. I would rather not apply it to "Abtract to stay away from JHunterJ" (Abtract->JHunterJ), although I will restrain JHunterJ->Abtract upon his request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you JHJ, even though we often disagree and you probably think I am a pedantic p..k (and I've had similar thoughts), so there is no need for any restrictions between us. Abtract (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this will have lasting effect. Abtract and the other editors will probably cross paths sometime on some article, and that would just spark up the same old conflict. What do you plan to do if Abtract does not follow your rule? Please don't take this as if I don't believe this will work - I think it has potential, I'm just unsure right now. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 19:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yeah, this isn't just a problem of one person being a jerk. The bidirectionality of the fault needs to be acknowledged by all parties and then some corresponding solution agreed to. --Atemperman (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.