User:Abtract/sandbox-2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User:Sesshomaru has a habit of removing awkward questions or statements from his talkpage: a few examples before I got bored recording them: [1] [2] [3] [4] three times [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Here is a more recent one [14] which would have annoyed me had it been my edit that was removed. I understand that this is not against the rules but imho it is a sign that we are dealing with an insecure person here, which may explain some of his behaviour. It is especially interesting that he "removes" a lot in view of his stated "Prefer keeping all all discussions in one page" when it suits him.[15]
He has no sense of humour; not a crime I know but difficult to deal with such a person: [16].
He is very keen to warn people (see this quite unecessarily terse warning to an anon [17] his edit didn't look like vandalism to me,; why not welcome him instead?) including me a few times for 3rv, even reporting me once: I was exhonerated and he was admonished.
He makes quite agressive edit summaries of the "Take it to talk page as I TOLD you before", again not illegal but.
I have taken quite a bit of time to give you an insight into Sess because it may help to explain how arrived at the current situation. This is how User:Collectonian was involved and urged on by Sess.
In the early days of our "relationship" we had a few normal editing disagreements. We each got annoyed with the other, culminating in my "up himself" statement quoted above. This was of course sheer stupidity on my behalf and I won't even plead provocation. Indeed I apologised for it on sess's talk page but (no surprise here) he removed my apology ... and later rejected it here (please note User:Arcayne's useful role and his last words to Sess)[18] and also here
I dislike injustice and quite recently when Sess was blocked for "staggeringly bad judgement to ... go on and on in a never-ending cycle was a terrible decision" transgressing the 3RV rule (!) I intervened to defend him [19] because I thought he had not been warned prior to the block. I can't see him doing that for me ... indeed it was he who reported me for a (non) violation of the same rule as is evident from this exchange [20] - note I was found not to have transgressed.
Still keen to have me blocked and loving his power to warn he tried again just a few minutes after failing first time. Amazingly, I then apologised again to Sess (I did think I may have gone just a tad too far) in order to move forward: This is my apology and Sess's response:
"Apology to User:Sesshomaru In order to enable my time and his/hers to be usefully employed editing articles (and dab pages), and to return some calm to my part of the wikipedia community, I would like to make a fresh start with Sesshomaru. To facilitate this, I hereby withdraw my allegations of stalking and apologise for said allegations (I am sure (s)he just randomly stumbles across dab pages and articles I have edited). I also apologise for saying he was "the single most painful, petty minded, vindictive editor it has been my displeasure to come into contact with" (I am sure time will prove this not to be so). In future, I will not make fun of his use of "Lord", or make any personal remarks about him/her, or revert any edit made by him/her without discussion and good justification; I will also attempt to avoid editing pages to which Sesshomaru has made a significant contribution, should I find one. I would appreciate it if Sesshomaru were to make an equally generous new beginning but my apology is not dependent on that. I will also post this on his/her page although clearly (s)he watches mine (as I do his/hers). Abtract (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)"
"Re: Apology I accept your apology, but you have to understand that I have watchlisted a myriad of disambiguation pages from here, therefore, it's not "stalking" when I edit a page that you have been at. If you truly are going to stop making baseless accusations, harsh incivility, etc., I'll be very content. Also, why do you edit war when someone tells you to discuss first? Can you please, please, please stop this behaviour? (This is what irritates me most) Please reply below. (BTW, I'd also appreciate replies to my questions at #Puer and Pu'er and #"Zero (ghost dog)".) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)"
Now that was a gracious acceptance don't you think? Well designed for a brighter future.
Despite being "rejected" yet again I tried a compromise solution, offering to split dab pages 2:1 in Sess's favour, but he rejected this offer.
Rejected three times is not a happy feeling.
People who have tried to help
- User:LessHeard vanU has been the most helpful with an offer of mediation. I accepted, Sess has not - I hope you are getting the picture by now.
- User:Arcayne gave me wise advice which I have tried to follow.
- User:Collectonian's "help" consisted of leaping straight in with a warning [21] about a very innocuous edit summary which she clearly failed to look into properly. At some stage she must have realised her mistake but she ploughed on regardless. If this is help, give me hindrance anyday.
- User:Redrocket has tried to be constrauctive and I accepted his suggestion.
Let's move on to "stalking".
LMA [22]
[edit] Request comment on users
| User-related issues | ||
|---|---|---|
| Further instructions are on each page | ||
| User conduct | (watch) | (add entry) |
| User names | (watch) | (add entry) |
To report an offensive or confusing user name in violation of Wikipedia username policy, see subpage User names.
To report spam, page blanking, and other blatant vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism.
A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Carefully read the following before filing an RfC.
- Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
- A user who is the subject of an RfC should be notified on their talk page. This may be done with the template {{subst:ConductDiscussion}}. {{subst:ConductResult|outcome of RfC}} may be used for the closing of the RfC.
- RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack.
- An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration. Filing an RfC is not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.
- In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration.
- Disputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, belong in an Article RfC.
- For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, a quick, simple way to get an outside view.
