User talk:Abtract/rfc2

Record of rfc so I don't lose it ... copied here by me. Abtract (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract is stalking again
Abtract unblocked under agreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, is stalking and harassing  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 He returned on the 12th, self closed his RFC/U on the 13th (though it had already been archived anyway), and began his stalking again, reverting various random edits we've done to "disagree" with u. as well as continuing his insults of other editors.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). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 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. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 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 - Requests for comment/Abtract. There are enough unaddressed points on both sides of the dispute to cause concern. UltraExactZZ Claims~ 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)
 * 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 talk 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent".  Corvus cornix  talk  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 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. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 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. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 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)
 * 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? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 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)

(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)
 * 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) 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think that's best. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Block overturned
Abtract's block, which was earlier reduced to two weeks, has been overturned by User Talk:JHunterJ, under an agreement to stop stalking placed there by Ncmvocalist. Dayewalker (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering JHunterJ's involvement, I strongly disagree with his overturning the block (which also goes against the wording of the very agreement Abtract says he will follow, making it null and void). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to be based on Abtract agreeing to the same kind of editing restrictions he's agreed to before and ignored. I've been trying to talk to him on his talk page, and all he ever seems interested in is getting restrictions on Collectonian and Sesshomaru, while completely ignoring his own behavior that's led to him being blocked six times. Dayewalker (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocks are preventive, not punitive. While neither Sesshomaru and Collectonian are obligated to agree to the agreement, they are obligated not to edit-war - it's much-more blatantly unacceptable and disruptive conduct. If they're edit-warring in the manner in which they did during this incident, blocks will not be out of the question, like so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of what blocks are there for, but when an editor is blocked for the same thing for a sixth time and this block isn't even as long as the previous ones, I don't see it as being preventive. I hope this agreement changes things, but warnings haven't meant much in the past. Dayewalker (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there's at least an admin, as well as myself who'll be taking a look often enough; or we're certainly open to being contacted in the event of problems. Any necessary measures will be imposed. The issue has our attention now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The proposal is for your own good if you do not want to be blocked"? "The issue has attention now"? No offense Ncm, but you seem to be having delusions of adminhood here. You're threatening the victim, and offering her the same reassurance that didn't work the last few times, and didn't even result in much of a block. Dayewalker (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, where are the diffs of every promise he's made? Was he unblocked for any of these promises? No. He's been unblocked conditionally; if he breaks the conditions, he's blocked. Blocks are not punitive. I'm not at all surprised if yourself, C or S are still unhappy, when you have that attitude in approaching a dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist has basically decided that because I refuse to accept the agreement as written, I shouldn't bother asking for help dealing with Abtract. To quote "there's no point complaining in the future - there'll be little to no help" and he has advocated that I be blocked for edit warring in the future if I basically don't agree to allow Abtract free reign to be disruptive on articles I edit and to not revert any vandalistic and harassing action he takes.. As he is not an administrator, I'm curious as to whether his seeming threats of "you will agree to what I say or you'll be punished for being stalked" will actually be enforced by an administrator. Has Wikipedia really become a place where the people who are stalked get blocked, while the one harassing them is alloewd to do whatever he wants? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is unacceptable (with the exception of BLP concerns), and continuing to do so will lead to blocks, period. You refuse to take responsibility for your actions, or assume good faith. In fact, you've stated that you're intent on assuming bad faith - if you expect the system to work in your favour with a tendentious argument like that, then yes, if you make a complaint like above, there will be little to no help. There is inconclusive evidence to support your claims. If he's vandalizing or edit-warring an article, he'll be blocked likewise. You or any other user has no authority to impose an agreement that resembles a restraining order - that's not the way we work here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you're lecturing the person who was edit warred against and stalked on the evils of edit warring. Collectonian, as well as anyone else who's followed Abtract's history of stalking or read his talk page, has no reason to treat this situation with good faith. We're bending over backwards to let someone who's been blocked six different times by six different admins come back without even serving a reasonable sixth block, and not even bothering to ask the people most familiar with his conduct if they think he has the slightest chance of keeping his word this time.


 * Honestly, I'm afraid at some point, this will result in Abtract reverting to form and taking someone else down with him by pure frustration. Dayewalker (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic. An editor's misconduct does not legitimize another's, when it is disruptive to the entire encyclopedia. We have a rule; Bold, Revert, Discuss. If all users cannot follow this rule and choose to go with Bold, Revert, Revert, etc. then they're all under scrutiny.
 * Btw, where are the diffs of every promise he's made? Was he unblocked for any of these promises? No. He's been unblocked conditionally; if he breaks the conditions, he's blocked. Blocks are not punitive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)You've made the same statement at User talk:Collectonian, and I responded there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can make yourself plain, but you're just covering yourself. All editors are always under scrutiny, that's not what I was talking about. You've taken the up defense of a six-time blocked editor and are saying the two editors he's harassed are under the same amount of scrutiny he's under. An editor blocked six times in a year for stalking and edit warring should logically be under more scrutiny than others, wouldn't you say?


 * As for the diffs, his promises are on his talk page as everyone who's followed his history can tell you. I'll have to go back to his previous blocks later to find specific ones. Since you got defensive and didn't provide diffs of the edit warring you've accused Sess and Coll of (which should have been just a few days ago, and much easier to find), I'm going to go out on a limb and assume your characterization of them both as edit warring and deserving of blocks was just a gross overstatement. Dayewalker (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Copied from User talk:Collectonian
 * No doubt, he is under more scrutiny for the reasons you've stated, and now because he's under an editing restriction.
 * That doesn't change the fact that this was a personally motivated bad-faith revert. No efforts to discuss the initial revert by Abtract were made. Abtract did revert again here making his conduct fall into question. Contrastingly, Abtract reverted Sesshomaru's revert, and then Sesshomaru again reverted Abtract's revert. This is not helpful conduct at all. This is compounded by the unwillingness to agree to not to revert at all, any of each other's reverts - under this scheme, if Abtract reverts, he'll be blocked - if C or S revert Abtract, then C or S will be blocked respectively, while if it's vandalism, someone else will revert it. So this problematic edit-warring has put all 3 editors under scrutiny; (it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Abtract is under more scrutiny, apparently except to Collectonian and possibly Sesshomaru and yourself who think otherwise) but this does not change the fact that S and C need to take care in their editing in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also C's (and possibly S's) unwillingness to agree to only one term pertaining to them (not to revert A's edits), in stark contrast to A agreeing to the multiple terms including not to revert S and C's edits, is very convincing that edit-warring is an issue here. It's not about a 'defense' or 'prosecution' or 'attack', it's just how this is to someone else looking at it. The agreement isn't unreasonable, given it does not preclude any other agreements or remedies in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained very plainly on my talk page why I refuse to agree to that "one item" but for those playing along I'll repeat it here: ''I appreciate you attempting to help, but in truth you are not an admin, and can't do anything to enforce the agreement. Abtract has violated such agreements before, and he will break this one, then claim it wasn't official or find some other excuse. I also will never agree to such terms that still gives him fair game to harass and stalk us on other articles (reverting isn't all he does, and his favorite target among articles I work on are the Meerkat Manor articles, which isn't anime nor manga. The only way I'd make any agreement at all is if his 2 week block remains in place until its done and he is banned from interacting with us at all, including not touching any article nor the talk page of articles that either of us is an editor on. I can just seem him using the loopholes to do things like tag articles for issues, attempt to get GAs or FAs we've done delisted, etc. There are lots of ways to harass us without having to revert when he's left with the options. Basically, it would have to be a virtual restraining order before I'd even consider it, and it must be backed up by an admin who isn't Abtract's defender. One willing to keep an eye on him or agree to be the one to report to if he violates.''

As long as he can continue to harass in ANY way, you're damn right I'm not going to agree not to revert it when he does. All your agreement does is deal with part of the issue, the reverting and the user talk page. It doesn't stop him from harassing on the talk pages and injecting himself into discussion we are a part of for the pure purposes of disagreeing with us, following our contribs and leaving notes on OTHER people's talk pages against us (such as people we've left warnings for our people we're in a disagreement with), and not making harassing edits (such as reverting a very valid redirect of an unnotable music album containing only a tracklist to its artist, as prescribed in WP:MUSIC, or falsely filling a featured article's lead with fact tags then feigning ignorance over why it was reverted, etc etc. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty extreme to prevent an editor from touching ANY article you or the other have touched in any way. Beam 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Have someone stalk you for two months and see if you'd want other wise. The only time he has ever touched any article I've worked on is purely to be harassing and a direct result of his self-admitted stalking. I think that's the saddest part of this all, he has fully admitted to doing it, and its still "our fault" for not letting him wreck articles because he gets off on harassing people. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you're overreacting. And I don't get stalked, I do the stalking!!! I stalk like 15 people. But not maliciously, it's friendly stalking. ;) Beam 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really...he stalks, he reverts and edits to deliberately harass, and it seems like he gets away with it and his victims are instead the ones being told they will be blocked for not bending over and take it. Indeed, his actions have now pretty much been sanctioned by his block being lifted early by a non-neutral admin, and believe me he will use it as an excuse when he starts up again. Gotta love Wiki sometimes *sigh*-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Closed. This is not a complaints department. Restrictions are preventive, not punitive, and the block has been lifted under the agreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well your restriction isn't preventing anything, nor is your closing a discussion in which you are personally involved and when one of the people, Sess, hasn't even had a chance to say a damn thing because he isn't online on weekends. There is also active discussion going on. How you think this is appropriate and why you, a total non-admin, is being allowed to make such actions is beyond me.. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the closing of this discussion, especially by a non-admin who is heavily involved in the discussion. Corvus cornix talk  16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have discussed this with both parties, and both sysops, during this ANI report only - I am uninvolved in the dispute, so I think I'm more than qualified to notice when this discussion has outlived its usefulness - no further admin action will be taken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've undid his closing and archived it myself now. There is no further action warranted. He was unblocked and made an agreement, I highly doubt any admin would reblock without further provocation. However, if he does break this agreement, bring it back here. Beam 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW We edited at the same exact time, with no edit conflict! THAT'S AWESOME! Beam 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)