Revision as of 16:45, 20 July 2008 editNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits Undid revision 226831306 by Ncmvocalist (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:53, 20 July 2008 edit undoJHunterJ (talk | contribs)Administrators105,776 edits →Agreement: unblocked under agreementNext edit → | ||
Line 664: | Line 664: | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
===Unblocked=== | |||
Unblocked under new agreement. If a user notices a breach in the agreement, please bring it up on ] and I will re-apply a new block. Cheers! -- ] (]) 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:53, 20 July 2008
Hello, welcome to my talk page!If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
- /archive 1 1 May - 31 October 2006
- /archive 2 1 November 2006 - 30 April 2007
- /archive 3 1 May - 31 October 2007 (includes the time I was blocked for overenthusiasm)
- /archive 4 1 November 2007 - 30 April 2008 (includes my paranoia phase)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!
|
Kukini 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I have retained this warm and useful welcome because it really did work. Abtract (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hp. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You seem to have a very bad tendency to edit war rather than actually discuss your disagreements with other editors. From what I've seen, so far you have violated 3RR on no less than four articles in 24 hours. You have managed to avoid a block so far, though how I do not know. You need to realize, however, that 3RR does not give you fair game to do 4 reverts and stop. If you continue reverting and warring in this manner, it is very likely you will be reported to AN/I or RFCU for administrative attention. Additionally, again I remind you to watch your choice of words in your edit summaries. Insults against other editors there are considered violations WP:CIVILITY. Collectonian (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for stopping by. I have "avoided a block" because I have not reverted a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. My "tendency to edit war" is of course (at least) matched by USer:JHunterJ (an admin no less) and User:Sesshomaru who persists in following me around so that he can revert me whenever possible. I assume you have warned them also? I admit that some of my edit summaries leave a little to be desired and I am working on that. Unless you can be more specific about my "violations", that's all I have to say. Abtract (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you've avoided a block because kind editors keep giving you a WP:3RR warning instead of just reporting you for edit warring. If you'll read up on edit wars, you'll see that WP:3RR states Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks.
- To sum up, an edit war doesn't need to violate WP:3RR to result in a block. Your actions, reverts, and edit summaries have been disruptive, and your page has seen plenty of warnings from editors trying to get you to behave civilly. Please do so. Redrocket (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I ask you again have you warned JHJ and Sess? Abtract (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. I'll look into it, but I know you've been warned before. As you are well aware, the conduct of other users does not give you the right to edit war and be uncivil. Redrocket (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you will find that JHJ was the first to revert me and has matched me since then ... and he is an admin!. You will also find that Sess had admitted to following me around (I call it stalking) and changing my edits when he can. You will also find that I have made peaceful overtures to Sess on three occasions and been rebuffed on each occasion. The particulart events you are (I assume since you have not been specific) referring to concern HP (disambiguation) and related pages where JHJ was the first to revert without justification (still none forthcoming). You have not warned JHJ, I wonder why not? Now unless you have some specific charge to bring, thanks for stopping by and goodbye. Abtract (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not bringing a charge, I'm summing up the 5+ warnings that you've received in the last day and telling you that your conduct is not civil, not productive, and is being disruptive. I understand we've had this conversation before , and you chose to ignore it. I'm just trying to get you to understand that regardless of the conduct of any other editor, you are responsible for your own content. Redrocket (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you will find that JHJ was the first to revert me and has matched me since then ... and he is an admin!. You will also find that Sess had admitted to following me around (I call it stalking) and changing my edits when he can. You will also find that I have made peaceful overtures to Sess on three occasions and been rebuffed on each occasion. The particulart events you are (I assume since you have not been specific) referring to concern HP (disambiguation) and related pages where JHJ was the first to revert without justification (still none forthcoming). You have not warned JHJ, I wonder why not? Now unless you have some specific charge to bring, thanks for stopping by and goodbye. Abtract (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
re User:Sesshomaru and past discussion
There is as yet no agreement to proceed toward arbitration, mediation, or other remedy, but it is too early to say that the process is dead. It seems that there are other parties involved in editing disputes that include Sesshomaru, and that they seem to be of the same opinion. Notwithstanding that they include an admin I am still prepared to act on all parties behalf to try and resolve this matter without anyone being restricted in their editing unless on a voluntary basis. I have dealt with Sesshomaru previously, and like to think I may have some influence in having a viewpoint heard if I am the messenger. This is the facility I am offering for you to use. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would be quite happy for you to do this. Thanks for the offer. Abtract (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Alouette(s)
If you have a chance, combine Alouette and Alouettes into one page. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea I have done it. For another time it's easy enough (imho) provided there is no talk on the talkpage of the one being redirected. Abtract (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
hp Horsepower
Would you add the {{editprotected}} to Talk:HP (disambiguation) asking that the "HP or hp is horsepower" edit be unreverted? The protecting admin suggested I not make the change, and if you add the editprotected request it may help prove that there's consensus for it. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
A bitch of a warning
With regard to your comments on User talk:Abtract: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry what's your point? Abtract (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- You need to stop making uncivil comments against other editors, even if you disagree with them. I have held off on further action in the hopes that you would take the advice of the several people trying to help you and change your behavior regarding edit warring and violating WP:CIVILITY (which is a policy) and WP:AGF (a guideline based on that policy). You seem to genuinely want to be a good contributer to Misplaced Pages, however continuing to insult others and edit warring will result in sanctions being taken against you, such as blocks. I urge you to please read those pages carefully, as well as WP:3RR, and take them, and the good advice I and others have given you to avoid further issues.Collectonian (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- yes, yes, so you said but what spurred you on to make this point now? Abtract (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your recent edit summary when you moved a comment. While technically accurate, it read badly. Collectonian (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry you will have to be more specific, I make lots of edits. :) Abtract (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- this one. Collectonian (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seems quite innocuous to me; what's your point? Abtract (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- It can be misinterpreted, particular with the recent incivility issues, so just saying to consider the way you word things in the future, especially when dealing with an article like that. Collectonian (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- What can be misinterpreted and by whom? Abtract (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- By anyone who doesn't check your contributes to see you meant literally that you were moving it to Talk:Bitch rather than implying the person was just "bitching" and you were removing it. Collectonian (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have more faith in "anyone checking my contributions" than you do. Just out of interest why are you checking my contributions? And why do you feel it necessary to warn me in such stentorian tones for using the name of an article in an edit summary ... a summary which I am sure the editor actually concerned with the exchange understood and found helpful. Thanks for stopping by, but I really do think you could be more usefully employed than threatening me. Abtract (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- You came to my attention through your regular edit warring. As others already told you, when you act disruptively, people will start watching you. I am not threatening you, I'm attempting to help you, but you continue to respond to all attempts to help you avoid being blocked with sarcasm and a brush off. Collectonian (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Your "help" was offered in a very peculiar way ... and completely off-beam. Being critical of me using the word "bitch" in an edit summary concerning the page Bitch (actually I meant Bitch (disambiguation) but that's neither here nor there) is so ludicrous that I can't think why you haven't apologise a long way up this thread. I can only presume that you didn't look into what was going on thoroughly, and you just leapt straight in to threaten me ( because you were indeed threatening me) and now you don't know how to get out of the situation with honour intact. Well, just put it down to experience, we all make mistakes. Thanks again for trying to help. :) Abtract (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I must say that your approach to mos:dab has been uncollaborative and less than circumspect, but I have to agree you were framed here :) dab (𒁳) 13:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Examples aplenty
See, the above conversation is a good example of what I tried to warn you was going to happen. When you get a couple of warnings and a block under your belt, you attract editors who assume you're going to continue your pattern of behavior and find it hard to assume good faith from you any longer.
I've looked at your contributions, you can be quite an asset to wikipedia. You've worked on some articles and disambig pages that not a lot of other people thought to touch, and that's great. It's the things in between that are causing problems and those problems have led to your actions being under the microscope.
As I have done before, I'd like to ask you to just be more thoughtful in your comments to other editors and edit summaries. It's the little things that sometimes get blown up, so please be mindful of that. As of this moment, I have no beef with you and I wish you well here on wikipedia. I'd like to see you stay and continue to be productive and civil. If I can be of help to you in the future, just drop me a line. Redrocket (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks I might do that. As to the above conversation, it has a very understandable beginning ... an editor wanting to make a point with me thinks I have transgressed because she didn't look beyond the word "bitch". However, imho, once she discovered her error she should have at the very least gone away (I didn't really expect an apology) but she didn't, she kept on and on despite the fact that by now she knows that I had made a very normal ordinary edit summary. I admit I teased her a little because obviously I knew from the start what she had in mind but I simply couldn't believe how long she continued without admitting that my edit summary was useful and nothing more. I have only been uncivil to one editor, under provocation, and not for some time. We all "edit war" occasionally when we are convinced we are right (no excuse I know) and I am addressing that (albeit slowly). Thanks for stopping by and for the offer. :) Abtract (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Tell you what, anything that's happened up to right now, just forget about. Start clean, and leave all the old conflicts behind you. Make an effort to not get involved in any of this, and you'll have a lot more time to edit the wiki (or better yet, do something productive in real life). It's just easier that way. Good luck! Redrocket (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am very happy to do that, indeed I do it everyday until silly threats come my way. ... I especially like the real life bit. I made much that appeal to Sess but sadly my offer was spurned. I am learning though. Thanks again. Abtract (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Abtract)
Hello, Abtract. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at ], where you may want to participate. -- Collectonian (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information; I shall watch with interest. Abtract (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to have disappeared, what happened? Abtract (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- It didn't make the 2 user contact threshold, and became defunct. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users. I didn't see the RFC before it went to redspace, but I am guessing due process wasn't followed with you before it was posted. aliasd·U·T 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Due process was followed. It was certified by a someone not even involved, but that doesn't count for the process. Of those who were involved, two decided not to certify to give Abtract yet another chance to prove he really is going to change like he keeps promising, and the third was off-line and didn't come back online until it was too late. Collectonian (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry if you interpreted my guess based on the edit summaries/delete summaries as to what happened as an assumption of bad faith, it wasn't that way really. aliasd·U·T 08:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful info User:aliasd and thanks for your interesting comments User:Collectonian. Abtract (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup of Kari
Just a couple of questions... Firstly, this is a longish list that was broken up into subject areas, why did you decide to place it all together into one mass? Secondly, why did you remove the reference to Tari, Papua New Guinea? Your edit seemed in my opinion to take the page further away from WP:MOSDB. Sorry if I seem to have a blunt tone here, just think you could have fixed this one up with far less work really. aliasd·U·T 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your two questions. I removed Tari because it is not Kari. I also removed the people and put them on a seperate page Kari (given name) so the list at Kari became much shorter and imho no sections are needed. As you can see no other editor has seen it necessary to insert headers which the manual of style only recomends for longer lists. If you are not happy with this, by all means take it to the talk page and get other views than mine. Abtract (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I doubt the talk page there will get much attention. Disambig talk pages hardly do :) I would like to see the list separated at least to put the related stuff together (such as the geo articles). I feel information is now more difficult to access the way it currently is. I believe in general a disambig page should take no more than 3 seconds for an average reader to navigate through. Also, Tari is Kari, the names are synonymous, the town is referred to by both names. Would you have a problem with this? I can make the edits myself. aliasd·U·T 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with headings on short lists, they just get in the way imho. As to Kari/Tari I see there is no citation for the name variants nor indeed for the article as a whole ... I won't fight you over putting it back in but you should mention that is is also known as Kari to justify its insersion. hope that helps. Abtract (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:HAU has a new format
Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/EU and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy ] to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Primary topic at Bravo
Since there seems to be some disagreement as to whether there is a primary topic at the disambiguation page Bravo, I've started up the discussion Talk:Bravo#Primary_topic so that we can resolve it without edit warring; your input would be much appreciated there. -- Natalya 16:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Au
{{help}}. I have a problem on Au where User:Bkonrad is persisting in an edit which runs completely counter to mos:dab (imho). I have given rationale for my suggested "gold" line (on the talk page) but they have not engaged in discussion, simply making rather inappropriate edit summaries. I would appreciate assistance in support of my reasoning or to tell me I am wrong ... I will accept either. It might be useful if helping editors have some knowledge of disambiguation pages. Thanks :) Abtract (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I left a note advising talk page discussion. I suggest not reverting for a while to see whether he's willing to discuss it.--chaser - t 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do ... or rather will not do. Abtract (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Unhelpful comment disguised as a "welcome"
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Misplaced Pages has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in YuYu Hakusho, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- ] (] · ]) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
More warnings
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on YuYu Hakusho. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please stop being so disruptive on this article. It already has a general tag and your addition of a bunch of fact tags is unnecessary and appears to only be retalitory in nature. -- ] (] · ]) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Additionally, your falsely labeling your undoing as "rv vandalism" is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, including WP:CIVILITY. I'm not going to bother giving you a second templated warning for using a false edit summary, but please be aware that deliberately making a false accusation of vandalism is not appropriate at all. You know very well that it was not vandalism. -- ] (] · ]) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- In addition, please do not call contributions by good faith users "vandalism", as you did here. Read WP:ASSUME, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interest but actually it was vandalism by an editor who should (and does) know better. I am quite entitled to place fact tags wherever there is unreferenced content ... indeed I would be quite entitled to remove such content as your buddy admitted only moments before wiping my entire edit. If you or they disagreed with my placement of these tags then the mannerly thing to do would have been to mention this on the article talk page not to revert blindly and attack me (even though it was thinly disguised as a "welcome") on my talk page. Abtract (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're clearly in the wrong here. Take a deep breath, and drop it. Doceirias (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Explain how and I probably will. Abtract (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will assume good faith and warn you concerning your violation of the three revert rule reported at the noticeboard. Please note that other users are objecting to your disruptive use of citation tags, not every single little sentence needs to be cited. In my view they are correct in that view and your re-adding of the tags was inappropriate. The article is clearly tagged at the top and until that has been dealt with individual requests for citations were not appropriate.--Matilda 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Abtract (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.I assumed good faith but your behaviour hasn't rewarded me. While technically not a 3RR I believe you are gaming the system --Matilda 01:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting ... What justification is there for blocking me for 3 reverts? And did you block User:Collectonian who actually made 4 reverts in a few hours? Abtract (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I should have blocked you yesterday when I consider your past practice but gave you the benefit of the doubt - my assumption of good faith was not rewarded by your subsequent behaviour.
- If you read the rule at Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule you will see Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances. I believe my actions for both you and the other user are in accordance with this rule. --Matilda 01:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't agree with you but thanks for the thoughtful reply. You clearly haven't taken into account the fact that User:Sesshomaru has spurned my apology twice (maybe even three times) and admitted to stalking me; and the fact that User:Collectonian first got involved with a rather sad and erroneous attack concerning the use of the word "bitch" in an edit summary of Bitch (disambiguation) ... I can only assume that they are both acting vindictively out of a sad desire not to admit to being wrong. No doubt that will earn me a longer block but it needs saying ... I just wish I had kept a better log of events. Thanks again. Abtract (talk)
RfC/User Two
Hello, Abtract. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at ], where you may want to participate. -- -- ] (] · ]) 20:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stop this, and stop it now. Not only are you acting childishly, but your deliberate attempt to goad me into an edit war only reflects badly on you. -- ] (] · ]) 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's a bit rich coming from someone who has just reverted 4 times and is about to be reported for it. Abtract (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Report if you like. Administrators are not stupid and will recognize your retaliation for what it is. -- ] (] · ]) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Note
Please be mindful of the three-revert rule and refrain from behavior such as this. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks ... a nice way of putting it. :) Abtract (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bitch (disambiguation). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- You never cease to amaze me ... it takes two to tango boy. Abtract (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, perhaps you can avoid the tango, and stop dancing together. - Arcayne () 04:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would love to ... but as you know Sess rejected my apology, spurned my suggestion to split dab pages 2:1 in his favour, did not agree to arbitration, and (so far) has not agreed to JHJHunter's very helpful proposed way forward. What more can I do? Abtract (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Enough with the stalking
Since you've gone ahead and admitted to stalking, as well as it being blatantly obvious from your contributions, stop. You obviously have better things to do than annoy other editors. And to your comment of your "stalking" not being in line with policy, go read WP:HARASS, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL, all of which you're clearly violating as of now. If this continues, I will block you for violations of the aforementioned policies. Sephiroth BCR 20:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have read those but can find no reason for your comments; could you enlarge please? Abtract (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- To put it simply, you're stalking User:Collectonian, User:Sesshomaru, among others. Stop. Simple as that. Sephiroth BCR 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you mean looking at their contributions in an attempt to correct the most obvious of their errors (a practice I learned from Sess and was assured was quite OK - when he did it!), I found it inherently unsatisfying so I don't do that anymore. Thanks for your interest. Abtract (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
MOS:DAB
you keep following me around with allegations of "against MOS:DAB", but you completely fail to point out just what part of that guideline my edits are supposed to violate. I fully endorse everything on that page, and I must really ask you to be more specific instead of summarily reverting my edits, which are mostly in the spirit of MOS:DAB#Order_of_entries, placing the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below and MOS:DAB#Longer_lists, broken up by subject area. Now please, either be specific and state your issue clearly on the relevant talkpages, or stop reverting my edits. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for stopping by. You are well aware that wp is not a dictionary (let alone a Greek one) - to name but one of the problems with your recent edit - more on the talk page. Abtract (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re RFC
Re "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)"
- Glad to hear it. I find you agreeable to disagree with too. :-) Next time you're in the American Midwest, I'll buy you a beer, and I'll be happy to let you buy me one next time I'm in your neck of the UK. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, that's a promise. Abtract (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Final warning
You've said that you've stopped stalking, but apparently you haven't. Consider this your final warning. I'd highly recommend you recuse yourself from editing pages that they edit simply to avoid any problems. And if you do interact with them, your behavior needs changing. This for one is not civil. Just distance yourself from them and you can avoid any problems. Sephiroth BCR 00:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see any problem with the edit summary you quote. It was from my talk page and it was indeed an idiotic warning. Trigger happy Sess had warned me for removing a stupid warning from User:Dbachmann's page - it was stupid because Dab clearly knew just what he was doing but in the heat of the moment saw no other way, wrong of course but enthusiastic editors tend to do it occasionally. To then warn me for removing it was sheer stupidity, but Sess simply cannot help giving an official warning whenever he can (check his 'warning log')... sorry but I stand by those words, which in any event are hardly the height of incivility. I am grateful that you are taking an interest but I would find it difficult to avoid them if they don't avoid me, and so far there is no sign that they feel inclined to agree with User:JHunterJ's eminently sensible solution to our problem - indeed Sess has not even had the curtesy to comment on his proposal (and Coll's comment was dismissive to say the least), now there's incivility for you! Perhaps you would care to try to persuade them to consider and respond to it constructively rather than wasting time warning me about minor words used on my own talk page? ... if Sess invades my space he deserves all he gets. Abtract (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's uncivil. I don't care what your personal feelings are on the manner; you're expected to act in a civil manner regardless of them. You seem to simply want to be involved in edit conflicts merely to annoy them, and that is not acceptable. Also, you don't own anything here in terms of pages, even your user pages, and edit warring, personal attacks, and harassment are treated the same as in the mainspace. As you've continued past this final warning, I've issued a 31 hour block. I hope your behavior can improve in the future. There's no reason you can't simply distance yourself from them and simply not become involved with them, which would avoid any of these problems altogether. Sephiroth BCR 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- And their part in this goes unpunished, unremarked upon, and with no attempt to get them to cooperate when I have apologised, suggested a solution and agreed with JHJ's proposal? You my fine friend should get out more if you think "idiotic warning" is uncivil. Abtract (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- You've given them no reason to believe you will follow that proposal or act in any manner of good faith. You're stalking them through their contribution lists and edit warring with them for no other reason than to annoy them, which constitutes harassment. You've been told multiple times to avoid stalking them and edit warring, which you've clearly not learned from. That specific talk page comment was just an example of incivility; I'm blocking you because of your consistent harassment that continued after I issued the above warnings, not because of one edit summary. Sephiroth BCR 21:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I have agreed to the proposal, they have not. When an agreement is in place I will follow it; what makes you think they will do the same when they can't even bring themselves to say so? 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Abtract (talk)
- You speak as though I was the only one at fault here. Have you read the latest exchange on Meercat Manor and the talk page? Do you seriously think Coll is acting in a rationale manner or is she simply trying to defeat me? Have you read the "bitch" saga? If you have, who do you think was in the wrong there? Abtract (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I have agreed to the proposal, they have not. When an agreement is in place I will follow it; what makes you think they will do the same when they can't even bring themselves to say so? 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Abtract (talk)
- You've given them no reason to believe you will follow that proposal or act in any manner of good faith. You're stalking them through their contribution lists and edit warring with them for no other reason than to annoy them, which constitutes harassment. You've been told multiple times to avoid stalking them and edit warring, which you've clearly not learned from. That specific talk page comment was just an example of incivility; I'm blocking you because of your consistent harassment that continued after I issued the above warnings, not because of one edit summary. Sephiroth BCR 21:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- And their part in this goes unpunished, unremarked upon, and with no attempt to get them to cooperate when I have apologised, suggested a solution and agreed with JHJ's proposal? You my fine friend should get out more if you think "idiotic warning" is uncivil. Abtract (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's uncivil. I don't care what your personal feelings are on the manner; you're expected to act in a civil manner regardless of them. You seem to simply want to be involved in edit conflicts merely to annoy them, and that is not acceptable. Also, you don't own anything here in terms of pages, even your user pages, and edit warring, personal attacks, and harassment are treated the same as in the mainspace. As you've continued past this final warning, I've issued a 31 hour block. I hope your behavior can improve in the future. There's no reason you can't simply distance yourself from them and simply not become involved with them, which would avoid any of these problems altogether. Sephiroth BCR 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "this is sheer stupidity ... I am criticised for an edit summary, on my talk page, that called a warning "idiotic" (pretty mild in my book); note I did not call the editor in question an idiot but just the edit itself. Abtract (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "The brief block, which was appropriate, will expire a mere 31 hours after having been placed. — Athaenara ✉ 08:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
- Abstract, i have been fairly quiet in this, as I thought that others were going to eventually get through to you. I've decided to comment because I am noticing a pattern with your reasoning that I sometimes have myself. In a great many instances, you are adopting a 'well-they-do-it-so-why-can't-I' attitude in relation to your edits and demeanor, and I think that this adoption is not doing you any favors. You are probably thinking that because they are seemingly "getting away" with "stalking" your edits and not giving you all the Good Faith, that turnabout is fair play.
- You need to understand that this is precisely the wrong attitude to internalize, and understand that it is by adopting this that you are straying away from your own comfort zone of editing style and ending up in trouble. By suggesting that you are justified in stalking another's edits because another editor watches yours (the claim about Sess doing that immediately comes to mind), it seems as if you are saying 'this isn't my behavior; I am simply emulating another's behavior.' While imitation might indeed be the height of flattery, I do not get the impression you particularly like or respect the editors whose behavior/misbehavior you are emulating. Why on earth would you want to emulate - and in essence become - that which you clam to dislike? Stop assuming that fighting fire with dfire is going to do anything other than burn you. Stop justifying your behavior in relation to anyone but your own.
- The assumption of good faith doesn't excuse bad behavior. Your behavior in negatively characterizing the edits of others is indeed bad behavior. If they do it to you, the objective is not to respond in kind, but to be kind, and further delineate through your own behavior how their behavior is inappropriate. If someone treats you badly, get a second opinion from an admin you have had positive interactions with in the past. If it escalates, or the admin cannot cool things down, ask for mediation, or simply report the behavior in wikiquette alerts. This might all seem like a tremendous waste of time (in in some cases, you are absolutely right; it doesn't alter the behavior of someone who is determined to be an utter jackass). However, you are going to find that if you follow - correctly - the steps of dispute resolution the right way, you are going to have a stronger case when and if it gets to arbitration. In short, keep your cool, play nice, as those who do not get tired of being blocked all the time.
- That's just my opinion, though. - Arcayne () 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- God I hate it when you're right. The still small voice of calm thrusts a well-reasoned spear into the heart of my discontent. You've tried before and one day you will win me over ... maybe this is the day. Either way, thanks mate. Abtract (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have also been lurking in these interchanges and was considering a note very similar to Arcayne's (although I'm sure not as eloquent). I hope the spear hits the discontent, leaves your obvious enthusiasm for Misplaced Pages intact and enhances your interactions with your fellow editors. I think you'll find that slack given will often be returned - maybe not immediately or always - but often. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks John, I appreciate your thoughtful words. :) Abtract (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Athaenara for considering my request. Abtract (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are welcome, Abtract. — Athaenara ✉ 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:ANI
Hello, Abtract. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Black Kite 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (Note:link is here).
- Thanks. Wouldn't it have been nice if the wikibonked complainant had notified me herself? Abtract (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, it was me that moved the report from WP:AIV to WP:ANI (as I didn't think it was straightforward vandalism), not her. Black Kite 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK Thanks ... even so ... Abtract (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, it was me that moved the report from WP:AIV to WP:ANI (as I didn't think it was straightforward vandalism), not her. Black Kite 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Your Recent Edits
Abtract, I just wanted to drop you a friendly reminder to remember the 3 Revert Rule. It seems that you and another editor are in violation of this rule. If you would like to have a specific edit made, please take it to 3rd Opinion or try contacting another editor or Admin to voice his/her opinion. Failure to follow the 3RR could get you blocked. If you have any questions, please drop me a message. Thanks and Happy Editing! Dusti 01:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the helpful reminder. Abtract (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your welcome, is there anything that I can help you with? Dusti 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's a very long story and I don't want to sound like a whinger but I do feel rather abused by User:Collectonian ... see this as an example (pretty well the first time we met). Abtract (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just told him the same thing as I'm getting ready to tell you > I understand your point of view, but if you disagree with someones edits and violate 3RR in trying to keep the article in the way you want it, your just as guilty. Its better to allow the other user to put it in his/her way and contact another editor or Admin for their point of view on the situation, rather then trying to handle it yourself and get yourself blocked in the process. Remember this, as its not an huge deal if something goes wrong- it took myself to learn that. Dusti 01:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Meerkat Manor
(from WP:AN3 - you wrote "Just so I have this straight ... she reverts my very reasonable edits 4 times without a decent edit summary (indeed calling mine vandalism) and she doesn't get blocked; that's what you are saying?")
- No - your edits aren't particularly reasonable, because they add fact tags to information that is sourced in the article. I wouldn't exactly call it vandalism, but since this comes straight after the release of a block for harrassment of that editor, it doesn't exactly look good, does it?. You have two choices here, really - stop following Collectonian around and placing spurious tags on articles they have edited, or get blocked again. Black Kite 01:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am supporting Black Kite on this Abtract, you have been out of line. I suggest that you cease editing to the article all togehter and stay away from Collectonian. Agree? Dusti 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is being discussed here and so far I have made all the concessions and she, presumably plagued by the wikibonking, had been obdurate. Abtract (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I understand the point about the lead now ... but how much nicer it would have been if Coll had mentioned that. And how much more acceptable it would have been if she had been agreeable on the "s" grammar point as she was advised by an independent editor on the talk page. Abtract (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it'd have been useful, but I can understand why she thought you were just being disruptive as well. Black Kite 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I understand the point about the lead now ... but how much nicer it would have been if Coll had mentioned that. And how much more acceptable it would have been if she had been agreeable on the "s" grammar point as she was advised by an independent editor on the talk page. Abtract (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is being discussed here and so far I have made all the concessions and she, presumably plagued by the wikibonking, had been obdurate. Abtract (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am supporting Black Kite on this Abtract, you have been out of line. I suggest that you cease editing to the article all togehter and stay away from Collectonian. Agree? Dusti 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Assistance sought from those who have taken an interest in my edits recently
Since you have taken an interest in my edits perhaps you could help resolve the difficulty I have. I have problems with two people. The first is User:Sesshomaru which goes back a long way and which mainly revolves around him not accepting my apology for some fairly minor insulting words I used to him in a weak moment. All I ask is that he accept my apology and we both agree to keep away from each other in a way that is clear - User:JHunterJ had a good suggestion but Sess has not responded to it. My second, much bigger, problem is with User:Collectonian. This arose because of this exchange. My request to you is: will you please look in some detail at this exchange (virtually the first time we had "met") and, if you think my complaint has some justification, please ask Coll to explain why she persists in stating that she was absolutely in the right. It seems to me that she is waging a vendetta (if they are wageable) against me in order not to admit to an error of judgement (at the least) - this is, in turn, has brought out the worst in my somewhat intemperate nature. That's all I want ... Sess to accept my apology gracefully, Coll to apologise for getting it wrong over "bitch", and both to agree to keep away from me as I will from them. The problem with Coll is the one I have to get out of my system or I will have to leave wp, I see no other way ... If you do, thanks for helping. Abtract (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Stop editing articles that they edit. It's not that difficult. Going onto Meerkat Manor to edit was clearly attempting to continue your harassment, as you had never edited that article before, and it is one that Collectonian has worked extensively on, as she pushed it to FA status. These conflicts don't exist until you instigate them. Staying away from both editors stops any such conflict. Sephiroth BCR 07:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am looking for help in solving a problem, not for terse instructions. If you looked at the "bitch" exhange, I assume you will say "yes" since any other answer would seem quite rude, what is your opinion? Abtract (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- You ask for assistance in resolving a dispute (indeed, you specifically request his help on his talk page, among those of other people), he offers assistance in resolving a dispute, and you complain that he offered assistance of a form you didn't like? Dreaded Walrus 08:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- What are you expecting? Me to block them? Harangue them? The solution to this problem is simple: stay away from them. Harassing them more will result it in longer blocks. You aren't going to get anything out of trying to vilify them. I'd recommend you drop the issue and go back to editing articles. If you can't do that, then Misplaced Pages probably isn't the best place for you to be at. Sephiroth BCR 08:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Has no-one got a comment on the "bitch" episode? Abtract (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- But that's not the core issue here. You're not following these users around simply because Collectonian may or may not have been mistaken on the use of the word "bitch". If you're holding out for someone to reprehend Coll for a minor issue from the past before you will drop your disagreements with her, whilst ignoring any other advice given to you until someone comments specifically on that one interaction, then it's a little bit silly on your part.Dreaded Walrus 09:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Has no-one got a comment on the "bitch" episode? Abtract (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am looking for help in solving a problem, not for terse instructions. If you looked at the "bitch" exhange, I assume you will say "yes" since any other answer would seem quite rude, what is your opinion? Abtract (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there, my view on this (and indeed on Misplaced Pages) can be summed up quite simply:
- This is a website. It is not life and death. If something is upsetting you the world will not end if you just move on to something else and leave it behind - if people are upsetting you you should try to avoid them and the articles where you are likely to run in to them. This is not a pronouncement on the rights and wrongs of this particular dispute but is a pragmatic strategy for staying sane and happy. (caveat - some fights are worth fighting but these are few and far between and this is not one of them)
- I often find people being what I would consider slightly over-sensitive with regard to interpretation of talk comments and edit summaries; at times this seems to be an institutional malaise. A storm in a teacup about what I consider to be an utterly innocuous, descriptive and literal edit summary of yours - characterised as the "bitch episode" - epitomises this. However, see point 1 for whether this is really worth losing sleep over.
- As you may have worked out already, I don't do drama! :) nancy 09:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I well understand both your points (nancy and walrus) but give me some understanding too ... if the bitch episode had not happened, there would be no problem between Coll and me. The bitch episode is important to me ... I need some concession that Coll, not me, was in the wrong there. I have a feeling you all agree with me on that point but don't want to say so because you feel I have been the main guilty party subsequently - all I can say is, if you (and Coll) genuinely want to fix things, the way to do it is to get Coll to explain this episode or to comment on it yourself (thanks for your comment nancy, I appreciate that). Abtract (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- To quote the eminently wise Rolling Stones, "you can't always get what you want". Some people will never apologize for many of the following reasons:
- they are impaired by some mental imperfection (ie, they need to spank their Inner Child or whatever),
- this is the internet; they think that apologies are for feltch monkeys,
- their mommy didn't hug them enough,
- they are getting punked by their boss, their wife, their mistress, their kids, etc. and don't feel like apologizing to anyone today,
- they don't think they are wrong.
- No matter what the reason, you could turn blue holding your breath while awaiting an apology. Chalk it all up to the occasional bad chemistry of interpersonal communications and move on. I don't necessarily subscribe to the advice of finding another article to edit in. Why should you have to move on? Instead, be polite - even if you are being constantly assailed by impoliteness. Lord knows I've been on both sides of that particular argument, so I know from whence I speak.
- If you don't want to leave the shared articles, you are going to need to learn to develop a tougher skin and a far more polite attitude. You have wit and a biting sarcasm - that is something no one is going to disagree with. You need to use this power for good, Abstract. Wit and quippiness is not a substitute for politeness and civility. I know this because I can be quippy. I can also be mean enough to send most editors running off to weep in their closets like despondent children. I used to be rather proud of this ability until it was pointed out to me that the wit doesn't do anything but foster resentment. If you are wrong, no amount of wit is going to save your ass. If you are correct, you are going to get people who oppose you for no other reason than because your sharp wit cut them at some point.
- You need to find a way to ease up on All the Witty, since you are finding it to be a less than effective tool in dealing with others. I can only tell you how I learned this. There are a number of admins who are a model of civility - editors whose civility and politeness are far beyond what I can often muster. When someone pisses me off and makes me desirous of making a soup bowl out of their skull, I stop editing and check out the aforementioned calm admin pages, talk pages and contributions. I also take a break, and get the hell away from the computer for a while. It may not make you like the person any more, but it will keep you from throwing gas onto the fire by responding poorly.
- Another tactic I have found useful is to stay polite - very polite - with someone who is acting inappropriately. I follow DR to the letter. If they cannot take the hint and calm down, they have no one else but themselves to blame when they are blocked after you report them. Remember, it isn't about maneuvering them into a corner where they turn into jackasses, but to give them plenty of opportunities to avoid jackass-hood.
- Lastly, remember that this is supposed to be fun. In the wise words of a friend of mine, if it isn't fun, and you aren't getting paid, why the hell are you doing it? If you aren't having fun, get the hell away from that topic which is causing you to feel icky.
- That's my two pence on the subject. Take it how you will. - Arcayne () 17:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)- Thanks but I am curious ... you block me for 4 reverts (pretty silly I agree) but you don't block Sess who has now made 4 reverts and badgered another editor into agreeing with him and making a revert on his behalf (effectively 5 reverts). Indeed his latest revert is more or less the same as my version with the exception of Egyptian surnames which is certainly not allowed by the mos. What was your rationale for not blocking Sess? Abtract (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have to admit, I am not understanding why, on the one hand, you thank me for my advice and seem intent on taking it, and then turn around and act precisely the same way. You may not be aware of this, but I am doing my level best to make sure you get a fair shake in the RfC against you. If you aren't willing to make the effort, why in the hell should I?
- Please, please, please stop wondering why you are getting "uneven" treatment. Stop caring what happens to Sesshomaru or Collectonian or anyone else. Use the time during your block to start thinking about what they heck you want out of Misplaced Pages. If you cannot alter your perception of how Misplaced Pages works, you are never going to be happy here. I can almost guarantee that when you come back, a LOT of people are going to be watching you, and waiting for you to screw up, so they can argue for you to be indef blocked. You need to focus on what you want, and edit that way. If that requires you to stay away from those editors who you cannot play nicely with, then so be it.
- If you cannot do this, then neither I - nor anyone else can - or will want to - help you. - Arcayne () 23:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want you to get indef blocked, or even blocked for an extended period of time, because as I said here, "you are both editors who want to improve the encyclopedia". I stand by that.
- However, I don't think it's fair to accuse Sesshomaru of "badgering" me into reversing my edit. Sometimes I act without thinking fully about everything. When he brought my attention to the edit I made (where in the edit summary I endorsed Abtract's version), it took just over an hour for me to revert to his last version. It took me so long as A, I had things I needed to do, and B, I wanted to make sure I looked carefully over the edit, rather than just blindly reverting because I was asked to. As I mentioned at the time, I didn't think either version was perfect, and would like it if both editors could come to a compromise on the versions. At the same time, I also attempted to point out the bits from each user's version I thought was good, per WP:MOSDAB (specifically the wording of subheadings in Abtract's version, and using the regular {{disambig}} instead of two separate disambig templates in Sess' version). Unfortunately, this was just 17 minutes before you were blocked, so you never had a chance to discuss, as you clearly were interested in doing (as you started the talk page topic). Sess then implemented what I consider to be the best mix of the two versions (basically the best of yours, and the best of his, with the worst of neither), so I feel it is unfair for you to categorize that as a "revert" when he kept the vast majority of your version. As for your suggestion that Category:Egyptian surnames should not be used on a disambiguation page, WP:MOSDAB#Categories states "No other categories should be added, except Category:Surnames, Category:Given names or their subcategories (if the disambiguation page includes sections of name information or lists of people)". In this case, Egyptian surnames is a subcat of Surnames, and Aladdin (disambiguation) does contain people, and is a surname. I don't think I've missed much in this post, but I've had to complete it bits at a time due to phone calls that needed dealing with, so I apologise if it is at all fragmented. Dreaded Walrus 01:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:HAU
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Misplaced Pages:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
AN/I notice
Hello, Abtract. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, -- ] (] · ]) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've blocked you for one week as a result of your continued harrassment and stalking of other editors. Trebor (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. I make three useful edits on pages I have edited before and a helpful suggestion to Sess and I am blocked; I fail to see the logic in that. Where have I been told to stay away from Sess (taught me all I know about following behind someone) or Coll (unable to understand when bitch is the correct word to use, and unable to apologise when she finally does realise it)? Abtract (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Even more interesting is the fact that Sess has accepted my edits as correct and not complained about them, well done Sess. Abtract (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. I make three useful edits on pages I have edited before and a helpful suggestion to Sess and I am blocked; I fail to see the logic in that. Where have I been told to stay away from Sess (taught me all I know about following behind someone) or Coll (unable to understand when bitch is the correct word to use, and unable to apologise when she finally does realise it)? Abtract (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Does a dozen warnings concerning edit warring and your harassment not hammer it home enough? Again, the solution is simple: don't interact with them at all. If you come off this block and continue the same type of editing, then you're probably going to get an indef block. You're digging the hole - getting out of it is very easy, but you simply need to do it. Sephiroth BCR 09:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I quite understand the inevitability of that ... but do you understand that I feel very agrieved at the poor treatment I have received from Sess who refused to accept my apology and other attempts to make the peace, then taught me (by example) to look at "contributions", and has moaned about it ever since; and from Coll who had obviously had a bitch of a day when she initiated this conversation but wasn't woman enough to admit her error? Abtract (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- All you've just said in that paragraph can be boiled down to "I'm stalking Sess because he reverted my edits, and I'm doing the same to Coll because I think she was wrong about something well over a month ago, and therefore I'm justified in my actions." You're not helping yourself at all, here. Dayewalker (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
List of defunct airlines - Citations
I strongly disagree with your suggestion we should delete this article. First I want to point out this in not an article; it has been categorised as a List. The citations can be found within many of the individual articles of the airlines. Many of the airlines listed are blue-text, with wiki articles of their own. Those articles cover, in most cases, the history of the airline, with the date it operational status changed, and may have the reason (merged, bought, bankruptcy, etc). A list is just that, a list, with links to individual articles. We might hope that every airline has its own article, but that is highly unlikely. Why would you suggest we delete a list? Please don't confuse a list with an article. -CubBC (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't confuse lists with articles but you should understand that even lists are imparting information and are therefore subject to the same verifiability rules as articles. There are many redlinked airlines listed all of which may well be valid but, for all the average reader knows, they may be the product of a schoolboy with a fertile imagination (is there any other kind?). Citations will fix this ... whoever entered these companies should have a source. Abtract (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Could use help on a DISAMB page
Seeing you have worked on disambiguation pages before, could you take a look at New Life. I've tried hard but it's sort of rough and I can't make the menu in the middle go away. Thanks. Tommytocker (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I've had a look at it but I don't know what you mean by the "menu in the middle". If you mean the fact that the second half is in sections, this is pretty common in disambiguation pages ("dab pages") ... indeed, if I was working on that page I would change the sections so that the first (unsectioned) part was smaller and the sections were larger (I think a section of one item seems a little silly). Hope this helps. You might also look at the manual of style if you want to learn more. :) Abtract (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Gender of God
{{help}}
I would appreciate some independent views and general assistance on this article where Alastair seems unable to accept the possibility of views other than their own, which are somewhat long winded and unreferenced. Abtract (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to ask for request for comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh ok thanks, I will give it a whirl ... I didn't know about that. Abtract (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Abtact, you are a good guy, but you're accusing the wrong person.
- You are doing the right thing to get expert comment, thanks for doing some work that will bring some support for me.
- However, you are biasing people's response by suggesting I cannot accept other views. That's wrong methodology. If it were true, people could see it for themselves, you wouldn't need to say it.
- Interestingly, asking for expert help actually shows that you realise yourself that no one has actually discussed content related to the article with me so far, they've only expressed style questions and made personal attacks when I disagree with them.
- It also shows that you realise there's actually a chance that I simply might know what I'm talking about. You, at least, acknowledge that you don't, which is a lot more than can be said for Ilkali, of whom the charge of not accepting being wrong is actually already proven.
- Note carefully, you are making an accusation you are admitting you are not qualified to judge. How can you know whether I'm simply motivated by topic related issues (good faith) or by refusal to be wrong, when you're admitting yourself that you can't judge the topic area?
- Anyway, here are two important issues from my perspective, think hard about them.
- "Alastair seems unable to accept the possibility of views other than their own", is a personal attack. You are now spreading slander from a deomonstratively aggressive editor.
- It is completely unacceptable that such views continue to be reproduced. I expect you either prove them, or withdraw them. It doesn't take much thought to realise you cannot prove them.
- I don't have time to waste running around defending my impeccable reputation. Those who throw the mud should clean it up.
- Please note, this issue will not be over until every personal attack against me is removed by those who made them. Strike outs are fine, in fact, they will be ideal, 'cause they'll allow others to verify the process.
- PS I am a he not a they. I am a man, please don't pretend I'm not. I do not appreciate being depersonalised. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Alastair, thanks for your comments and thanks for reinstating your essay in the body of the article and not in the lead where it clearly did not belong. I still don't like your lead which doesn't even mention the topic and, as indicated by Misplaced Pages:Mos#First sentences, this should be the first word(s) of the first sentence. I'm not sure why you are so insistent on inserting "gods" when another editor (not me) has objected; my lead was an attempt to solve this dipute between you two with words that I thought were non-contentious (silly me), that actually introduced the article with a very brief summary (one that could and should be expanded), and was in line with the mos. You accuse my lead of being OR and POV which I find a tad surprising in view of your lengthy unreferenced assay, of which I might say the same. If you want to talk about the article, let's do it on the talk page; if you want to continue talking about you and me, by all means do so here. Thanks for stopping by. Abtract (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- You really are a nice guy. I've just dropped a second warning for edit warring. I'll delete the warnings if you're happy to discuss things at the talk page. I believe you when you say you're not into edit wars, nor am I. The point I make about tagging as a last resort is serious, though. Additionally, I am even more serious about slander.
- I will insist on another thing regarding any discussion of that text, and that is the withdrawl of the pejorative use of essay. The text does not fit that description, it's either a deliberate insult, a misunderstanding of the "essay" policy, a misunderstanding of the text, or a mixture of the whole lot. Whatever it is, it is wrong and needs to be dropped.
- If you read what I say, rather than what Ilkali says about me, you might just have noticed I commented that the text I've provided was never intended to be a lead. It's just I'm not going play round-and-round-the-mulberry-bush over what text is where when the article is still at a start-class level. The article needs content, not nit-picking, and not abusive nit-picking at that.
- Regarding the current lead, it's what I wrote more than a year ago, and Ilkali is the only one to mess with it, introducing glaringly inappropriate features. He didn't take kindly to having his two sentences reverted and that's what got us to where we are.
- He claimed "person" and "he" wer inappropriate reference to God. In the Oxford dictionary, God="superhuman person (viewed as masculine)"!!!
- Now, I ask you, is there anything wrong with me that I didn't let Ilkali bully me into letting him have "entity" and "it"?
- Go right back in the edit history, check the talk page, something people should do first, before accusing anyone of anything. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure it matters much here, but the following is either a deliberate fabrication or an error: "He claimed "person" and "he" wer inappropriate reference to God". My principle objections were always to: 1) Use of 'a God', 2) discussion of non-God deities in an article called 'Gender of God'. Ilkali (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't but help laughing at this Alastair. I introduceda nice neutral lead to solve a problem you were having with another editor; you have chosen to make a mountain out of a molehill by rejecting it without reason (except it wan't your idea). Frankly I couldn't care less what you do or say, you are clearly not inclined to debate anything and have absolutely no idea how to write an article. You mention a second edit war warning; what do you mean by that? Are you aware that an edit war always involves two editors? are you aware that there are two editors against your view and none in favour of it? Go away and play with your fine words little man, don't bother me. Abtract (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- "You mention a second edit war warning; what do you mean by that? Are you aware that an edit war always involves two editors?". My thoughts exactly. And I confess I still have no idea of what Alastair means when he "warns" other editors. Ilkali (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Nothing But Trouble" vs. "Nothing but Trouble"
Abtract, although you claimed 'all articles have a lower case "b"', this is not the case for the three films titled Nothing But Trouble, see , , . The 1991 OST is named after the film so why move it to "Nothing but Trouble"? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I was going by the wp articles (which is what is being disambiguated) and all five of them use a lower case "b". Abtract (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm aware, but it appears the official titles of those films and that soundtrack are supposed to have a capital "B" ("Girls Ain't Nothing but Trouble" seems to be correct as it is ). My point being, I am going to move those articles back based on what Internet Movie Database and Allmusic use, respectively. Hope that makes sense. Thoughts before I act? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have only checked one but I assume you are right, therefore moving the individual articles to a capital "B" article name would seem sensible. Following that, naturally the dab page might also go back as it was; though, if there are two one way and three the other, it hardly seems worthwhile. Whatever you decide to do is fine by me. Abtract (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm aware, but it appears the official titles of those films and that soundtrack are supposed to have a capital "B" ("Girls Ain't Nothing but Trouble" seems to be correct as it is ). My point being, I am going to move those articles back based on what Internet Movie Database and Allmusic use, respectively. Hope that makes sense. Thoughts before I act? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, who would have thought the rules would have come back to bite us like that? Abtract (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. As surprising as this may be, I'm not interested in sparking a discussion or anything over it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Seven Deadly Sins
Sorry that I allowed myself to respond to that troll.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem ... that's why I put my msg of support, just trying to help out. Abtract (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Constructive edit at Gender of God
Thanks for that Abtact. Blockquotes should be longer, "shy" is a little poetic, "regarding" may feel either abrupt or long to different tastes. I may have overlooked other changes. Great example of adapting style without injuring content, weasling or injecting POV. Indeed, I think your modifications aid a reader's access to the text -- less distraction, less surprise, more immediate access to information content. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.Abtract (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you're serious about editing content I provide, you will need to do some research. Your edit regarding gender showed you're not aware that since 1950 gender has been considered ambiguous, and is divided into gender identity, gender role and other categories. See Wiki article on Gender for a brief intro and for primary sources.
- I'll be delighted if you can prove any of the text I supply to be out of date or wrong, though I think you'll agree that's unlikely. But this should not be about me, it should be about the article. Please consider contributing to the article, rather than (apparantly) guessing at where you could change my text.
- There is absolutely no coverage of Shinto, there should be, and I know little about their God, gods and related views of their gender roles. The Islam section seems dubious to me, it is certainly not sourced or explained well.
- But I'm covering old ground. It's way easier to delete and criticise than to provide constructive content. Please consider even summarising Wiki Shinto, if finding other sources doesn't appeal to you. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Misery and dashes
Lol :) The difference is between - and –. Or hyphen and en dash. See WP:DASH, though I doubt it will make much sense. Renata (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The point is compliance with WP:MOS, some really geeky grammatical distinction, and aesthetic value to some super detailed-orientated :) Renata (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring at Viam agnoscere veritatis
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Viam agnoscere veritatis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please do not revert against consensus. Elonka 03:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Amusing ... didn't I read somewhere that it's not good form to template regular users like this? ... and for one revert, WOW! Abtract (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I see it as two reverts, though I agree it's grey area since your first revert was to a page that you had not been previously involved with. However, when another editor reverted you, pointing to the talkpage consensus, but you still chose to revert him again, that's when you crossed the line. I apologize if it seems like I'm over-reacting here, but we already spent months discussing this. It was a colossal timesuck for multiple editors over this one minor page, which was set up as a compromise in a longrunning dispute (as can be seen at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)). This dispute dragged on over six months, involved scores of articles, an ArbCom case, and one editor being completely banned from editing in the topic area for a year. I'd really rather that we didn't stir up the old hornet's nest again, especially because we're still working through many other pages that need complex cleanup from that one user's actions. Maybe when cleanup is done, we can re-visit whether or not that dab page should go, but for now, I'd rather stick with the existing consensus rather than having to spend months re-discussing everything. Thanks, --Elonka 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that attempting to PROD an article because several editors disagreed with your changes is incredibly bad form. Deletions need to conform to the deletion policy, not be used as a way to win a dispute. You also pointed to "ongoing discussion" that ended back in March of this year. Please try taking your concerns to the talk page of the article and discussing with other editors if you have concerns or don't understand the gist of the discussion that happened in March. Shell 15:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand the disambiguation rules quite well and I understand the edit warring rules quite well also. I made an edit which semed, and still seems, very sensible and absolutely within the letter and spirit of mos:dab ... my edit was reverted without explanation ... so, being that sort of person, I made my own revert (note my first and only revert, and also note that I gave good edit summaries for my initial edit and my revert). I was then templated with a warning ... very bad form in more ways than one. I am off edit warring so I made no more reverts but decided the better way might be to prod the so called dab page as, clearly, it should not exist according to the rules. Then along comes another person warning me off the page (is that allowed?) because I prodded it - my, my. I would appreciate someone pointing me to the specific place where consensus was reached, as I couldn' see it, before I put this page up for AfD as it surely deserves. Abtract (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see another editor has made similar points to mine ... will you be warning him off too? Abtract (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- JHunterJ is listed as a party at the User Conduct RfC involving you. I wouldn't list him as a neutral party here. Please, can we just drop this, rather than continuing to escalate? There are so many things on Misplaced Pages which would be more in need of our attention, than this one small page about an obscure academic topic, that has already been discussed for months. --Elonka 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- The other editor is handling the situation properly by holding a discussion on the talk page of the article and hasn't been edit warring on the article. If you would move to joining the discussion instead of adding yet more improper tags in order to get your way, you wouldn't be warned either. So far all I've seen is you claiming the disambiguation is improper, which right now, isn't the consensus viewpoint. Given your other recent edits to disambiguation pages, I would say that maybe you don't quite understand how they work as well as you think - sometimes its important to notice when other editors are trying to give you pointers or help you understand why what you're doing isn't the right action.
- You've been invited to join the discussion to see if consensus has changed and you're still welcome to join in. However, if you continue to disrupt the article by reverting or applying improper tags, you may end up being blocked. Shell 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Amusing ... you have clearly read my recent record and think that you can bully me by threatening me with a block? ... pishaw. Abtract (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Abtract, no one is threatening you. We asked nicely that you stop being disruptive on the article and instead, you've continued trying to find ways to make the change you've decided is appropriate and been decidedly incivil in your responses here. Given the number of times you've been warned about edit warring and disruption, its just not possible to assume that you don't realise this behavior isn't welcome. With your history, current problems and this behavior, its likely that continuing will lead to a block - that's nothing more than knowing how things go on Misplaced Pages, not a personal threat to block you. Shell 21:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not being disruptive, I am attempting to correct a glaring error ... an error also spotted by Usere:JHunterJ, possibly the most respected dab expert. The fact that I was warned for edit warring after one (I repeat one) revert indicates just how thin the rationale must be for that nonsense dab page because bullying tactics would not have been used had the rationale been good. I used other methods in an attempt to attract attention in support ... this seems to have worked because another editor has proposed a move to eliminate the dab page in question. My history, which if you look at it carefully is not so bad ("I was framed honest gov"), has nothing to do with the issue at hand but it is an easy way of trying to get your own way. Now why not go to the discussion about the move and make a sensible informed comment there. Abtract (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think I understand what your concern was now, but tagging an article for deletion and cleanup isn't supposed to be used to "get attention". In the future, please consider trying an RfC or other similar community attention grabber if you feel that additional notice is needed - you'll also find that you won't get warned for getting attention that way ;) Shell 21:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that was my next move. To be honest, at the beginning it never occured to me it would be that difficult as the dab page was so outrageously wrong so I just changed it ... was reverted then tried the easy route with prod and cleanup ... silly me. Thanks again. Abtract (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think I understand what your concern was now, but tagging an article for deletion and cleanup isn't supposed to be used to "get attention". In the future, please consider trying an RfC or other similar community attention grabber if you feel that additional notice is needed - you'll also find that you won't get warned for getting attention that way ;) Shell 21:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not being disruptive, I am attempting to correct a glaring error ... an error also spotted by Usere:JHunterJ, possibly the most respected dab expert. The fact that I was warned for edit warring after one (I repeat one) revert indicates just how thin the rationale must be for that nonsense dab page because bullying tactics would not have been used had the rationale been good. I used other methods in an attempt to attract attention in support ... this seems to have worked because another editor has proposed a move to eliminate the dab page in question. My history, which if you look at it carefully is not so bad ("I was framed honest gov"), has nothing to do with the issue at hand but it is an easy way of trying to get your own way. Now why not go to the discussion about the move and make a sensible informed comment there. Abtract (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Abtract, no one is threatening you. We asked nicely that you stop being disruptive on the article and instead, you've continued trying to find ways to make the change you've decided is appropriate and been decidedly incivil in your responses here. Given the number of times you've been warned about edit warring and disruption, its just not possible to assume that you don't realise this behavior isn't welcome. With your history, current problems and this behavior, its likely that continuing will lead to a block - that's nothing more than knowing how things go on Misplaced Pages, not a personal threat to block you. Shell 21:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Zeitgeist
What about that sentence which you deleted do you challenge the truth of? The the status of adoption by the English language is 'rare'? That the word has been adopted by the language? ? Quaeler (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Rare is a POV ... if it is supported by a good source, then insert a citation; otherwise it should not be included, sorry. All, of course, imho. :) Abtract (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Dab page
Why? This is a disambiguation page and should not be overloaded with details – just enough for a reader to find the proper article. Not to mention some of the stuff there needs de-POVing & citations. See WP:SETINDEX:
- A disambiguation page has links to a heterogeneous set of concepts. It is purely for navigation, not information, and should have minimal formatting and follow the strict set of rules at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).
Therefore I revert. Renata (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have looked very carefully at the edit history of this page and I think maybe you are confusing me with someone else ... if not, please be more specific about your point. :) Abtract (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I presented the diff to your edit at 19:47, 21 June 2008 to Polish–Teutonic War. That is the edit I am talking about. Renata (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK I see it now ... I think I must have picked up an ealier version by mistake. I am quite happy with your new version which is much more aligned with mos:dab rules then before. Apologies for my error. Abtract (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Alastair Haines enlisting support at WikiProject Christianity
You may be interested to see this, if you haven't already: (diff: ).
This coincides with the following, left on my talk page: "I can use the diffs to prove that I've warned you, but lots of people know me, they'd be surprised if I didn't do the right thing. So it's not likely to be checked anyway.". I leave you to make your own interpretations. Ilkali (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, no I hadn't seen it but I would be delighted for some more editors to take an interest. Abtract (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh dear, oh dear, LOLOL. Would you prefer I call in admin friends, Ilkali? Actually, Abtact seems to playing this straight, so I think we may not need to waste anyone else's time. Abtact's comment about getting other editors involved is a very Wiki approach. You never know if someone might show up who can actually contribute, but didn't know the article existed.
- If you look at the Christianity page now, btw, I called off the request, due to what seems a good initiative from Abtact.
- I'll probably delete my post altogether if I get the impression that Ilkali is learning the ropes. You may note also, I haven't named you, Ilkali, so I don't bias people against you. I want Ilkali contributing constructively at Wiki. I don't know yet whether I'll win that struggle, but I'd be a little silly to spoil my plans in advance. Everything depends on whether Ilkali is interested in documenting knowledge, seeking attention, or disrupting specific kinds of articles. I really don't know. The neat thing about Wiki is, though, the policies end up making only knowledge documentation the only sustainable long term motivation. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Friendly advice
Hi Abstract. I happened to come across your RFC and came across these threads too: , , , , . I'd suggest you change the ""you got up on the wrong side of the bed" comment, which you were politely asked to do. It's one thing to raise a good faith concern, and it's another to be disruptive. You've done enough forum-shopping on this, I'd say it's time to let things drop. Let the RM run its course, and then please let that be the end of things, rather than dragging it out any further. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, I know you meant it well but if you looked at the previous post to which I was reacting you will see a personal attack in the midst of a vote ... elonka paid only lip service to the issue and concentrated on me which is bad form as you well know. My reaction was in any event pretty mild so, no, I will not be changing it. Thanks again. Abtract (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:RSUE
You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES 04:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I am interested but I am pretty busy so may not be able to look for a while sorry. Abtract (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
WIKIBREAK
for three weeks. Abtract (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Megaliths: Why plural?
In this edit you seem to have completed a merge from megalith into megaliths. Why the plural? Misplaced Pages policy says article titles should be singular except when there's some special reason to use the plural. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I don't remember the details but I do remember that there was consensus to merge three (I think) similar articles and the name chosen was megaliths. Quite why we picked the plural rather than the singular I'm unsure but maybe it was because it was a new name for a new article. If you feel the singular would be better, and I don't see any objection myself, then go ahead. Thanks for asking. Abtract (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Greetings Abtract - many thanks for re-instating the The Party Album (Alexis Korner) article. I was too hot & tired to enter into any heated discussion with the editor who "deleted" it and was leaving it till tomorrow before deciding what to do. It's nice to know that there's folks out there who are prepared to be more tolerant and flexible - in the spirit of Misplaced Pages! Regards, --Technopat (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem ... it seems a reasonable stub to me. Abtract (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
AN/I
Hello, Abtract. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ] (] · ]) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocked
(REFACTORED INDEF BLOCK TEMPLATE) I have templated you so that you can use the unblock request format. I think you should really, really consider your editing habits before making your request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- It might be useful, and polite, if you explained why you have taken this action. Abtract (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you look at the section above, and follow the links. I have put my action up for review, and you can always use the unblock request to get another admin to look at it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- And I suggest you might have had the courtesy to give me just one reason for the block. I will not be contesting this block as I am quite confident that you or others will remove it once you or they have read the history contained within the recent rfc. You will note that both Sess and Coll were soundly criticised for their part in the dispute, that neither of them had the decency to respond in a positive way to the several solutions that were proposed (the most concrete being by JHJ) and that no-one closed the rfc even well after 30 days. I am told it has been archived but I can see no evidence of that (probably I am looking in the wrong place). Since no agreement or compromise was reached, despite me agreeing to the suggested ones, I concluded that there was no follow up required of me ... no-one has told me differently. Meanwhile Sess and Coll have gone their merry way acting in concert to overcome opposition when it appears. I have made a couple of very reasonable edits that they happen to disagree with (no other editor has demured so far) ... I presume this caused the block, much to their delight . So it's your choice guys ... block me or get Sess and Coll to agree to some sort of compromise working arrangement, you won't find me too difficult but I cannot do it alone. Please read these before you decide . Abtract (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you look at the section above, and follow the links. I have put my action up for review, and you can always use the unblock request to get another admin to look at it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment to LessHeard vanU and Dayewalker
I am intrigued as to why you are both so adamant in blocking me and supporting the block respectively when all the evidence suggests that this is a draconian measure. I don't want to bore you with too much detail but surely it hasn't escaped your attention that all the neutral editors' comments were highly critical of both Sess and Coll (and of me too, I agree) in the recent RfC and that, despite my efforts to agree to almost any suggestion as to future conduct, they did not? Why do you two (almost alone in those who have considered the events) feel that I and only I am to blame? I have been quite circumspect in my dealings with them recently but you seem to feel I have overstepped some unspecified mark. I would be grateful if you both explain specifically why I should be blocked. I would also be pleased if you could offer some compromise code of conduct that Sess, Coll and I could agree to. I have only ever wanted to be a good editor; sadly my contact with Sess and then Coll has damaged my faith in WP and, it looks like, prevented me from editing in future. Just for the record I am not using a sock IP address. If you don't reply below, when I see you active, I will assume you are not watching this page and I will email you the above). Abtract (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I am watching this page. I have left this block open for review by other admins and especially commented that I need not be consulted if any sysop wished to vary or lift the block. There seems to be a lot of other matters taking peoples attention (including mine) on the boards at the moment, so I will raise the matter again to see if there is anyone willing to take a look. I would also suggest that you use the unblock request, because then an admin will review the circumstances.
- If you have already posted an email, I would comment that I do not keep my mailbox open while I am online - I check it when logging in and then close it - and if you haven't then it is up to you if you want to send it. As I said, I have this page on my watchlist so if you want to advise me re emails I will see it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for requesting comments elewhere; that was a decent action. Abtract (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am reducing the block to 2 weeks, and will re-notify you with a template so you can appeal. To be blunt, I am of the opinion that you seek to involve yourself in legitimate disputes between Sesshomaru or Collectionan and other parties as a means of harassing those editors. I have seen you make promises to withdraw from areas that S & C edit, and to comport yourself more suitably, and have seen you renege on your word. As I have made my position clear I shall no longer involve myself in executing admin actions against you after the block alteration, but I shall be available to participate in any content dispute resolution or user conduct review that is brought forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for requesting comments elewhere; that was a decent action. Abtract (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I support this block, and have already given my reasons. You have a long history of burying discussions under mountains of wikilawyering, and I want no part of that. No evidence exists your block is "draconian." Every time you are blocked, it's always someone else's fault. You've been told before to straighten up and be responsible for yourself, and everytime you promise to and don't deliver. You've had every chance to stay away from those two and show you're not wikistalking them, but somehow you keep crossing their path. This is my opinion, I don't want to discuss this further with you or get drawn into a long discussion. Don't email me. Dayewalker (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- mmm ... useful. Abtract (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to User:Sesshomaru and User:Collectonian
We have crossed swords several times and from your comments here, I know you are quite pleased to see me blocked indefinitely. However, I am hoping there is within you both sufficient spark of human decency that you will at least consider my proposal. First, I need to apologise to you both: to Sess for saying you were "the most up yourself editor it has been my misfortune to meet" - not only am I sorry I said it but I have actually met another who exceeds you; then to Coll I apologise for implying that you were being economical with the truth when you said you had not jumped to conclusions and accused me unjustifiably in this exchange, if you genuinely think that was OK, then who am I to argue. So, apologies over, to my proposal:
First, I suggest we adopt a no revert policy with each other; I will not revert either of you and you will not revert me. If we disagree with an edit we should take the thought straight to the talk page. I think it would be best if we stick to the spirit rather than the letter of this, so no partial reverts or reverts with a couple of words changed. Second, Sess and I love our dab pages, so I would happily split them between us roughly equally in whatever way Sess thinks is fair (letters of the alphabet?). Third, Both Sess and Coll seem to love their anime/manga articles so I will not edit any such articles in future. Your positive comments would be appreciated. Abtract (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Copied from elsewhere so I don't lose track of it; I have few places I can edit right now. Abtract (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Abtract is stalking again
Once again, Abtract (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is stalking and harassing Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) and myself. See the RfC/U for the full history (which expired with no action).
For the highlights, Abtract began his stalking campaign in mid-late May. In an AN/I on June 2nd he was warned to leave us alone, he ignored it. On June 2nd, another AN/I resulted in a 48 hour block. He came back and continued his stalking and harassment, stalking which he full admits to doing. June 5th, another AN/I, he was blocked for a week. After that block, he took a two week wikibreak. He returned on the 12th, self closed his RFC/U on the 13th (though it had already been archived anyway), and began his stalking again, reverting various random edits we've done to "disagree" with u. as well as continuing his insults of other editors. He's also continued to retain an attack piece against Sesshomaru in his userspace since May.
He obviously is learning nothing from the blocks and intends to continue this inappropriate and disturbing behavior anytime he returns, thumbing his nose at the administrators who have blocked him, and the numerous editors who have attempted to talk to him (to which he always replies as if he is listening, then does what he wants anyway). -- ] (] · ]) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocked
Please review. I would comment that I am imposing the block until such time as Abtract promises to moderate his interactions with (the edits of) certain accounts, and anyone who thinks sufficient clue has been applied may lift the block without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks...would it also be possible, at this point, to delete the attack page? It was made May 4th giving the appearance it was prep for an RfC/U, but Abtract never touched it again and has just left it there for more than two months. -- ] (] · ]) 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Following a discussion on a similar subject, I would be against unilaterally removing the content; Abtract needs warning from another (uninvolved) editor that it should be removed, giving the various WP policies. If they do not remove it after an appropriate period it can then be deleted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- The now-archived request for comment may be of interest - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abtract. There are enough unaddressed points on both sides of the dispute to cause concern. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with a long block, but I'm certainly not comfortable with an indefinite block. Blocks escalate in duration, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc. We don't keep them blocked and make it a mandatory requirement for them to apologize or to accept responsibility or to make assurances. That's only needed for an unblock request. We still give them the opportunity to fix their conduct by themselves, without the wurble. I therefore think the appropriate definite period needs to be given prior to any formal unblock request being made by him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Have you seen the block log? My experience of this editor is that they will say all the right things, agree to all the conditions, patiently wait out the blocks, and then continue doing whatever they please. However, if you think the block is inappropriate then by all means vary it - it is up for review after all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I think he's on his way to a community ban if he keeps it up, though given he's had 4 short blocks, doing an indefinite block already isn't going to necessarily help. I think giving him 1 long block of a month as a last chance might be better prior to going to indefinite stage. But as my suggestion is a month, when it's reset isn't urgent I suppose. I want to see some more views on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Have you seen the block log? My experience of this editor is that they will say all the right things, agree to all the conditions, patiently wait out the blocks, and then continue doing whatever they please. However, if you think the block is inappropriate then by all means vary it - it is up for review after all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with a long block, but I'm certainly not comfortable with an indefinite block. Blocks escalate in duration, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc. We don't keep them blocked and make it a mandatory requirement for them to apologize or to accept responsibility or to make assurances. That's only needed for an unblock request. We still give them the opportunity to fix their conduct by themselves, without the wurble. I therefore think the appropriate definite period needs to be given prior to any formal unblock request being made by him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think this would have been better if it had been an uninvolved admin doing the blocking. As Ncmvocalist has pointed out, normal procedure is a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community runs out of patience. If it wasn't this way, half the IP editors would be indef banned by now. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would say the previous 5 blocks including the last one for a week was a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community ran out of patience. Also, we try not to block IP editors indef at all. Chillum 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Unwilling to learn from past experience; unable to take advice; deliberately wasting the time and disrupting the work of good editors; more than adequately warned... no argument with indefblock here. EyeSerene 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would say the previous 5 blocks including the last one for a week was a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community ran out of patience. Also, we try not to block IP editors indef at all. Chillum 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Corvus cornixtalk 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Presumably nobody here is reading the RFC, which was as critical of Collectionion and Sessh as it was of Abtract, and clearly shows that it was Abtract who had done most to resolve these issues amicably. Likewise the diffs Collectionion presents above, which seem to be good edits by Abtract. Note in passing that redirecting a page on the day of its creation with an {{underconstruction}}
tag placed on it by its creator is rather gauche,and the revision history of Dragon Ball Z shows that Sessh and Collectionion seem to be "stalking" and "harassing" each other... When can an editor not review contribs and make edits they deem good ones? When can Sessh do that? When can Collectionion do that? When can Abtract do that?
Agree that Abtract could simply make this go away by not interacting with these users, but he has repeatedly offered to do so if they do the same. Please read the RFC and see Collectonion's and Sessh's rejections of the mediations offered there by various users. The pig-headedness is decidedly not all on one side here. I am disappointed that an editor can simply forum-shop until they get the result they want. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to immediately remove the block on Abtract, for the reasons noted by 86.44.20.40. Abtract expressed agreement to several solutions proposed that would also apply similar strictures to Sesshomaru and Collectonian (who have also stalked and edit warred along with Abtract), but with no buy in. The histories of the articles linked in the complaint show that this is not a case of one editor harassing innocent victims. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you are going to make such an accusation, then please provide clear, valid evidence for the claim that I have stalked Abtract or anyone else. -- ] (] · ]) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The edit histories of the pages whose diffs you linked here and in the RFC will show the edit warring. I apologize for saying that you stalked Abtract. I have only seen Sesshomaru trailing his edits, and formed my statement too hastily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Edit warring is relative when he deliberately stalked my edits and reverted just to disagree with me (and the stalking is a fact, admitted to by Abstract himself). It directly violates the warnings given him in his last block. There is a difference and, note he also violated his own "I'll only revert them once" resulting in what should have been a very standard, commonplace unnotable album redirect into an AfD. -- ] (] · ]) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Edit warring is rationalizable, but not relative. I can rationalize it when I do it, you can rationalize it when you do it, Abtract when he does it, and Sesshomaru when he does it. Because all four of us have done it. That's why I made the proposals I made in the RFC, and I think it's unfortunate that you and Sesshomaru wouldn't agree to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- There was no need for me, you and Col to adhere to that. It should only apply for Abtract, who seemingly enjoys edit warring. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are many reasons for all of us to adhere to that. Seeking to address the multi-sided problem with a single-sided solution was not as good as addressing it with a multi-sided solution. From your perspective, Abtract seems to enjoy edit warring, since he does it when clearly you are in the right. From his perspective, I hazard that you seem to enjoy edit warring, since you do it when clearly he is in the right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- J I suggest you compare mine and Abtract's talk page histories and notice who has the most warnings. That's all I'm saying. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are many reasons for all of us to adhere to that. Seeking to address the multi-sided problem with a single-sided solution was not as good as addressing it with a multi-sided solution. From your perspective, Abtract seems to enjoy edit warring, since he does it when clearly you are in the right. From his perspective, I hazard that you seem to enjoy edit warring, since you do it when clearly he is in the right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- There was no need for me, you and Col to adhere to that. It should only apply for Abtract, who seemingly enjoys edit warring. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Edit warring is rationalizable, but not relative. I can rationalize it when I do it, you can rationalize it when you do it, Abtract when he does it, and Sesshomaru when he does it. Because all four of us have done it. That's why I made the proposals I made in the RFC, and I think it's unfortunate that you and Sesshomaru wouldn't agree to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Edit warring is relative when he deliberately stalked my edits and reverted just to disagree with me (and the stalking is a fact, admitted to by Abstract himself). It directly violates the warnings given him in his last block. There is a difference and, note he also violated his own "I'll only revert them once" resulting in what should have been a very standard, commonplace unnotable album redirect into an AfD. -- ] (] · ]) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes J, if you are going to make such allegations I would like to see evidence. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian, you keep saying "self-admitted" and such, when Abtract is clearly saying he is taking his lead from Sessh, as in Sessh here You know this of course. It's all in the RFC. Remember the RFC? And how dispute resolution is supposed to work? I don't like how you keep going to venues, carefully revising your framing of your case each time, so that more accumulates, and less people click through. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- And you do realize that we all know that you are Abtract, evading his block, right? -- ] (] · ]) 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The other, less absurd option is that I am the same IP that stumbled upon the RFC and gave a reasonable and uninvolved view there. Please don't do that "we" business, speak for yourself. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- And you do realize that we all know that you are Abtract, evading his block, right? -- ] (] · ]) 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian, you keep saying "self-admitted" and such, when Abtract is clearly saying he is taking his lead from Sessh, as in Sessh here You know this of course. It's all in the RFC. Remember the RFC? And how dispute resolution is supposed to work? I don't like how you keep going to venues, carefully revising your framing of your case each time, so that more accumulates, and less people click through. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The edit histories of the pages whose diffs you linked here and in the RFC will show the edit warring. I apologize for saying that you stalked Abtract. I have only seen Sesshomaru trailing his edits, and formed my statement too hastily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you are going to make such an accusation, then please provide clear, valid evidence for the claim that I have stalked Abtract or anyone else. -- ] (] · ]) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
(OD)I thought this was wrapped up, but if there's any doubt, I support the block. Abtract has promised on several occasions to stop crossing paths with these two editors, and appears incapable of living up to his promises. He appears now to be IP socking to protest the latest block. Support. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Given the block log and behaviour of the IP, I support this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- What behaviour are you referring to? When an IP editor comments, it is used against the blocked party? That's nice. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're not helping yourself with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Evidently I'm not helping Abtract with this, but that is because a small minority of people see an IP and throw AGF out the window for no reason at all. That is not my fault, nor his. I see nothing objectionable about my behaviour. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with editing from an IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take it to your talk page then. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with editing from an IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Evidently I'm not helping Abtract with this, but that is because a small minority of people see an IP and throw AGF out the window for no reason at all. That is not my fault, nor his. I see nothing objectionable about my behaviour. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're not helping yourself with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
from later postings to the RfC - copied by Abtract (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Abtract is still arguing that the block is biased - in that Sesshomaru and Collectonian remain unsanctioned - and too severe. I should be extremely grateful if another admin review the matter and address Abtracts concerns. I have responded on Abtracts talkpage regarding having the block reviewed, so commenting there - where Abtract can respond - would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at it as a third party now.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I’m not quite convinced by the complaint by the filing party here to begin with. did not warrant edit-warring, and did not constitute harassment. Differences should have been settled on the article talk pages with discussion rather than repeated edit-warring by both parties. If the first revert seemed unreasonable, it should've been discussed per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Was there consensus for the re-revert by the filing parties? If there was, it certainly was not cited. Being "stalked" is insufficient reasoning for re-reverting here - they were not unreasonable reverts. I think if a block was to be imposed, it would need to be on both parties for edit-warring, potentially a bit longer on Abtract because he did make a personal attack/assumption of bad faith here against an anon, but that’s a separate matter and would probably not warrant a block of this length. I'm beginning to think JHunterJ's view as a sysop to lift the block needs to be considered. If I've missed something (diffs of any other incidents or where he voluntarily proclaimed he will not touch edits by the filing party or where arbcom made it binding on him), please let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is a history between the parties, which I am aware of and referred to at the top of this section - there is no good faith between users Abtract, and Sesshomaru and Collectionan following claim and counter claim of stalking, revert warring, and unfriendly talkpage interaction. Previously, prior to the RfC, I took the part of trying to argue Abtract's case as he was in dispute with quite a few other editors but my view is that Abtract inserts himself into disputes between S (whose style of editing results in a fair few disputes), C and other partiess. In this matter of the Alexis Korner record article, the dispute was between a third party and C which Abtract quickly involved himself - thus the claim of stalking. To me, there was clear evidence of a bad faith action on the part of Abtract - even though the action itself appeared legitimate. I see much the same interactions in Abtract's relationships with Sesshomaru and Collectionan for some time, many instances of legitimate disputes but with an unusual degree of overlap. I do not feel that this is simply coincidence.
- Nevertheless, there is sufficient doubt over the validity of the indef block that I feel it cannot stand. I am going to substitute it for a fortnight block. This should allow any persons with a concern that Abtract is involved in a campaign of harassment to develop a case, and to indicate to Abtract the communities determination that these concerns be addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I’m not quite convinced by the complaint by the filing party here to begin with. did not warrant edit-warring, and did not constitute harassment. Differences should have been settled on the article talk pages with discussion rather than repeated edit-warring by both parties. If the first revert seemed unreasonable, it should've been discussed per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Was there consensus for the re-revert by the filing parties? If there was, it certainly was not cited. Being "stalked" is insufficient reasoning for re-reverting here - they were not unreasonable reverts. I think if a block was to be imposed, it would need to be on both parties for edit-warring, potentially a bit longer on Abtract because he did make a personal attack/assumption of bad faith here against an anon, but that’s a separate matter and would probably not warrant a block of this length. I'm beginning to think JHunterJ's view as a sysop to lift the block needs to be considered. If I've missed something (diffs of any other incidents or where he voluntarily proclaimed he will not touch edits by the filing party or where arbcom made it binding on him), please let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at it as a third party now.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.I have now blocked you for two weeks, following the discussion in the sections above. Since you have been blocked for 3 days already I have entered a tariff of 11 days. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate your considered action. I would also appreciate it if you could encourage S and C to consider my proposal above so that we can draw this unsavoury affair to a reasonable conclusion. Abtract (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear I thought you were a neutral "uninvolved" editor
Anyone wishing to make a case against me needs only go to you for support I guess ... . Abtract (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was neutral, as far as anyone with previous experience of the matter could be, in my previous handling of the matter. It appears that you were not aware of my "bias", which indicates that I acted properly. However, in the arguing the case for my block it should have been apparent that my opinion was supportive of the position held by S and C, that you are interacting with them in a bad faith manner. Once I had admitted to my viewpoint - which had not been apparent in my actions - there was no reason for me not to offer to help those who I feel have been the (more) innocent parties in this matter. It also means that I should not and will not take any sysop action against you in the future - not because it wouldn't be neutral but because there will be a perceived question of bias. Remember, even though I believed then that you were the aggravating party, I was prepared to ensure that you got a fair hearing and varied the block when there was sufficient disquiet expressed about the original term. I do not think you can complain that I didn't act neutrally, notwithstanding my opinion.
- As regards your request about asking S and C to review your suggestions, under the circumstances perhaps you might ask another admin to do it. I am also now aware that you have read my comments at Sesshomaru's talkpage, so you are properly advised of the likely consequences of future contentious interaction. I am satisfied that I have acted, and am acting, in accordance with the role of admin and that potential disruption to the encyclopedia is being reduced.
- Lastly, I was not uninvolved since I was attempting to mediate between you and S before the creation of the RfC - but I had always acted in a neutral manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am staggered that someone who has followed this case from near the beginning sees no fault in S or C, and does not think he should use his influence with them to sort out this matter once and for all ... an Admin's job is indeed to reduce potential disruption (surely by assisting compromise) not to help build a case (surely not by assisting with a vendetta) ... my offer above still stands. Abtract (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- (EC)There's no vendetta here. You are always staggered when people don't agree with you about the actions of the other two editors. That should tell you something. You've been offered numerous opportunities to stay away from them, and you never have, and you always seem surprised when admins recognize your pattern of behavior.
- I am staggered that someone who has followed this case from near the beginning sees no fault in S or C, and does not think he should use his influence with them to sort out this matter once and for all ... an Admin's job is indeed to reduce potential disruption (surely by assisting compromise) not to help build a case (surely not by assisting with a vendetta) ... my offer above still stands. Abtract (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- If I may offer advice, stop asking other people who have consistently been found in the right to change their behavior. You're getting your sixth second chance in less than a year, which is staggering enough. Stop complaining about the actions of other editors and when you are unblocked, leave them alone. Dayewalker (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well actually that isn't quite true now is it? Several people were highly critical of both Sess and Coll in the recent RfC. Abtract (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- One editor was, and another who is widely believed to be your IP sock and was blocked for disruption. You've been blocked six times by six different admins in less than a year. Whether you think you did anything wrong, or you believe you were blameless and in the right all six times, you have to understand that the majority of editors feel your behavior is blockworthy, and needs to be changed. Dayewalker (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry mate but you are talking through your pyjamas now ... read the independent comments in the RfC and you will see that several editors (maybe admins for all I know) were highly critical of S and C. In addition, the independent review of my most recent block was pretty critical of it and said "I think if a block was to be imposed, it would need to be on both parties for edit-warring". As to the so call "sock" why not do a check? I can assure you, much as I welcome their support, it certainly isn't me. If those blocking admins in the past had concentrated on solving the problem rather than taking punitive action then we wouldn't be here now. I presume you are pretty neutral in this so why don't you make a name for yourself and be the one to solve the problem (an admin's job?) by getting Coll and Sess to consider my proposal above? Your help would be appreciated. Abtract (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Read it, understood it, stand by my comments about it. No need for a checkuser on an obvious sock, as multiple admins and editors agreed on it.
- Sorry mate but you are talking through your pyjamas now ... read the independent comments in the RfC and you will see that several editors (maybe admins for all I know) were highly critical of S and C. In addition, the independent review of my most recent block was pretty critical of it and said "I think if a block was to be imposed, it would need to be on both parties for edit-warring". As to the so call "sock" why not do a check? I can assure you, much as I welcome their support, it certainly isn't me. If those blocking admins in the past had concentrated on solving the problem rather than taking punitive action then we wouldn't be here now. I presume you are pretty neutral in this so why don't you make a name for yourself and be the one to solve the problem (an admin's job?) by getting Coll and Sess to consider my proposal above? Your help would be appreciated. Abtract (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- When you continue to talk about S & J's edits, you reinforce the perceived attitude that you are blameless and didn't deserve any of your six blocks. Even blocked for a sixth time, you're continuing to focus on them instead of just getting past that. If you come back and just stay away from them, no one will care about your previous edit wars. Dayewalker (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- And I am glad you used the word contentious above ... pray tell which of my actions, for which you so hastily blocked me, were contentious and in what way? Abtract (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- The word before "contentious" is future; I am referring to potential disputes. "Contentious", in this context, is a polite reference to your habit of disrupting the encyclopedia by inserting yourself into disputes that involve either Sesshomaru or Collectonion for the purpose of harassing them. If you are unable to recognise this in your behaviour then I doubt my providing any examples will be of any use, since you are likely to repeat this violation when your block expires - and you are then again blocked indefinitely. As Dayewalker comments, you seem incapable of taking responsibility for your own failings as a Misplaced Pages editor - which are indicated by the extent and similarity of your blocklog. I am therefore disinclined to continue this discussion, and am unwatching this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- And I am glad you used the word contentious above ... pray tell which of my actions, for which you so hastily blocked me, were contentious and in what way? Abtract (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreement
- Users who sign below the following terms, agree to be subject to these terms indefinitely.
- Should a user violate the following terms, they will be sanctioned or blocked by an administrator.
- Abtract is not to revert any edits made by Collectonian and Sesshomaru. Collectonian and Sesshomaru are not to revert any edits made by Abtract. If these users disagree to any edit, differences are to be discussed in a civil manner on the talk page of the article. Content issues may be taken through Article RFC or a form of mediation per WP:DR if necessary.
- Abtract is not to edit any articles concerning anime/manga (broadly construed).
- Abtract is not to edit User talk:Collectonian and User talk:Sesshomaru (or any of their user pages or user sub pages) after his current block (present at 16:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)) has expired or has been lifted.
- Users who agree to the above terms are to sign below
- Agreed Abtract (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Unblocked
Unblocked under new agreement. If a user notices a breach in the agreement, please bring it up on User talk:JHunterJ and I will re-apply a new block. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)