Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abtract

Discussion of comments on 1RR solution

 * Moved here from Requests for comment/Abtract

Are you following it? Is Sess following it? Abtract (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not listed, nor should I be. You are the one stalking and harassing others, and randomly reverting edits just to revert them. When you make false and disruptive edits, I will continue reverting them. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are not following it? Abtract (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not listed and the only reverting I do of things you do is when you disrupt articles I work on just to be disruptive. You quit the stalking and disruption, and won't be an issue. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My own comment on Abtract's comment that "provided Coll and Sess are not allowed to act as a pair": I think other editors should be "allowed" to act as a pair. If two editors disagree with your edit (or one with your revert of another), then that would seem to be a better indication of leaving the pair's view in the article while the discussion take place. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This could be a stumbling block I'm afraid. Look at it from my point of view - we have Sess who has harranged me almost from the moment we 'met", and Coll who has created a mountain out of a molehill because she has "bitch blinkers", these two have conspired to start this second Rfc (the first got nowhere) and, frankly, I don't trust them not to agree with each other just for the sake of it. Abtract (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You know...I love how you keep finding new ways to throw out subtle insults over that one minor issue, despite it already being said multiple times that it is not the main issue, nor what the whole issue is. Obviously others have agreed with me that you refuse to change your behavior despite their help, including people you called helpful and thought would support you. So stop trying to act like its a conspiracy and that you have done nothing wrong. If it were a just me and Sess "conspiring" against you, you wouldn't have been blocked, this RfC would have gone nowhere either, and none of this would be occurring. As for the first one going nowhere, its because several people choose to give you another chance, two of whom then certified this RfC after you continued to break your promises to change. Sess didn't even do a certification that would have counted to keep the RfC going, FYI. It was two people who gave you one more chance. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (response to Abtract after ec) Let's take that for granted; I think that's more of a "Wikipedia lump" (as in, take your lumps). I think the alternative, saying that their agreement on an issue should be discounted because they both disagree with you as a matter of course (remember, we're taking that for granted) is more problematic. If they are "wrong" on a page, but are in agreement against your lone voice, the "best" solution would be to leave that page wrong while the discussion continues or get another voice (through WT:MOSDAB or my talk page or wherever). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, in the interest of resolution, I agree. Abtract (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional note. You note that "frankly, I don't trust them not to agree with each other just for the sake of it." Sorry, but that doesn't happen. Check our history, you'll see we have disagreed with one another before (its actually how we "met" so to speak). I'd like to think my talk page archives and my editing history speak for itself, but many people come to me asking for a third opinion because they know that I will look at the issue neutrally and offer my own view based on my understanding of the relevant guidelines and policies. I also won't hesitate to correct or warn one or both parties if they are in violation of both. This is especially true in areas where I am very active, such as the Anime/Manga project, featured lists (especially episode list), the television project, and in issues revolving around WP:FICT, formatting and evaluating citations (I'm a citation nazi and freely admit it :P), and WP:RS. Editors I've helped before or worked with before will also often come to ask me to weigh on in something, I'd like to think because they respect my opinion and policy of being fair and neutral, not because they think I'll automatically agree with them. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I dare say you are right but, since the bitch episode, I have no respect for you whatsoever. Do you still think your actions then were correct from beginning to end? Do you have no guilt feelings about it? Abtract (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know you have no respect for me. And yes, I still feel my actions were correct and no, I do not feel guilty about it all. If I had felt I was wrong, I'd have said so at the time. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For that I will never respect you. You made a mistake (we all do it from time to time) and, as an intelligent woman you simply must know it but, despite that, you refuse to admit it. Instead you have created this silly vendetta. Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have done all I can to make things right between Sess and me ... and probably would have succeeded eventually had you not intervened. He and I are a little alike, I sadly admit, a tad stubborn. Hey ho, on we go. Abtract (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do me this one small favour ... tell me in a simple clear way, why you were justified in placing a formal warning on my page for using the word "bitch" in an edit summary concerning the article Bitch. Abtract (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Twas already done and I will not bother trying again. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Humour me, do it again so we can all see what we think. Abtract (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummmm...no. The conversation is linked to in the RfC already if anyone is interested. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is linked at least three times, because it is important, but that doesn't explain your rationale for believing it was right even with the benefit of hindsight. Please explain why you were right and it may solve a lot of the problem. In any event I would have thought you owed me an explanation after starting this process. Abtract (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, no. You continue trying to act like it is the largest part of this issue, when it is not. It is a relatively minor one, but one you choose to harp on because I guess its the only part you feel you can defend. Out of the entire RfC, that you continue focusing on such a thing just shows what a "lot of the problem" is: how you continue to ignore the real issues here. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I give up ... someone let me know on my talk page if there is a proposal on the table that Sess and Coll have accepted and I will consider it. Abtract (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of comments on End to the following and harassment

 * Moved here from Requests for comment/Abtract

You are the only one doing following others around like this. Indeed, it seems to be the bulk of your "editing" on Wikipedia. No one "acts as a pair to oppose you." I make my own decisions and voice my own thoughts, thanks. That you just happen to be wrong isn't a sign that others are ganging up on you (as is shown by multiple other editors also disagreeing with you). And no, we don't "limit edits by alphabet", which would be particularly silly for me since you don't generally edit any articles I work with except in your following Sess and me around. How you and Sess deal with avoiding one another when you both deal with disambigs is between you and him. For me, you don't work in my areas of interest anyway, so all you have to do is just stop following. I don't work in disambigs except for the rare need to make one/expand one for articles I work on, so the only reason there are any conflicts now is because you actively chose to start following me around to harass me.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly that is untrue ... the reason you and I have a problem is that you picked up one word (bitch) in an edit summary about the article bitch; this was not totally unreasonable initially but then you must soon have realised your mistake - instead of apologising, or at the very least withdrawing, you went on and on (and indeed, on) and never did adamit you were in the wrong. The other editor involved (the one who you presumably thought might have been offended) has subsequently said "you were framed" when he was guided to look at our exchange here . Even now you have not admitted to being in the wrong; indeed I suspect you have pursued this vendetta mainly to avoid admitting you were wrong ... that's why we have a problem. I know I am not perfect but with editors other than you and Sess (who admitted to stalking me - and you told me this was OK - long before it ever occured to me that looking at his edit summaries was a good way of correcting the worst of his mistakes) I am enthusiastic but not aggressive, and I am learning how to control my enthiusiasm. Abtract (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alas, you continue to refuse to see the actual whole issue, and continue to try to make it appear as if I have some vendetta against you because of one issue. As long as you continue to refuse to acknowledge the things you are doing, all discussion is pointless. I've also already explained to you multiple times that no, stalking is not acceptable. Looking at a disruptive editors contribs to see if the disruptive behavior is carrying over is one thing, but you aren't doing that. You are following just to revert and contradict for no other purpose than to be annoying and, as you yourself admitted, to "unabashedly" follow us around just to do it. That's stalking and against multiple Wikipedia policies. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Closed
As it is well past 30 days I assume this process is closed. Since neither Sess nor Coll has responded in any helpful or positive way to the suggestions, which I agreed to, of JHunterJ and others ... rather surprising in view of the ticking off they received in the comments of Zara709 (endorsed by Idag, Credo, 86.44.28.52, Athaenara and Atemperman) and 86.44.28.52 (endorsed by Athaenara and Atemperman) ... I will treat them the same as other editors. Thus, I will be respectful and polite and will in general limit myself to 1RR (which is, in any event, what we are all supposed to do) but I will not pussyfoot around them. As it happens I am about to start my degree course so my time on WP will be limited and spasmodic. Abtract (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)