" September 2008 (UTC) 

 == Not really a winner... == 

 Looking at it in parts: 

 The agreement was designed to be 'terminatable'. *grumbling* It appears to have been done ,  and . (But I'm very annoyed that JHunterJ failed to notify me of the discussion or the result - not sure if he mentioned it to you.) Collectonian (Co) really should've signed that agreement but refused to do so, and all I can do is sigh at the moment because I do see part of the complaint above misrepresented and Abtract (Ab) is partially off the hook. 

 This revert by Co wasn't helpful - if it was just correcting the date, a partial revert was all that was needed. The full revert of the history with ""will fix rest up in a minute"" isn't going to fly and appears as a WP:OWN problem (and of course, it will escalate the situation). Predictably, Ab reverted here - his ""get away woman"" comment in the edit summary would surely escalate this further. I won't be surprised if he's going to say that he intended it to mean 'don't revert in full then - I spent my time contributing'. That's the part he's off the hook. 

 Ab filed a 3RR report on Co, where he was not involved in the dispute. The reverts on the 3RR report did show edit-warring - both Michael and Co were involved and Stifle protected the page (see ). But as Co points out, civil discussion was already under way on the issue at Co's talk page prior to the 3RR being filed. It's one thing to genuinely file a report as an uninvolved editor in a dispute, but it's another when you've been repeatedly told to stay away from each other. Why file the 3RR report despite being in the latter category? The harassment claims are not meritless here. As there was clearly editwarring, I don't think an indef block will be supported, but it's time for sanctions.  

 There were so many drama invitations in this case, primarily though, brought on by Collectonian's refusal to sign the agreement. Collectonian wants nothing less than Abtract to stop. It goes both ways. Whether Abtract created the article because it was on Collectonian's to-do list or because he wanted to remains to be seen. I suggest the following remedies to be enacted. 

 * Should, in the opinion of any administrator, Abtract make any edit which constitutes harassment of Collectonian, he may be briefly blocked, for up to 3 months in the event of repeat offenses. Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include harassment of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators.  
 * If Collectonian has made an edit in any article, Abtract is prohibited from reverting it in full or part. (Note: if the edit was reverted in part by editor X and it was reinserted in part by an editor other than Collectonian, Abtract may revert that part.) 
 * If Abtract has made an edit in an article, Collectonian is prohibited from reverting it in full or part. (Note: if the edit was reverted in part by editor X and it was reinserted in part by an editor other than Abtract, Collectonian may revert that part.)  
 * Should a user violate these 2 restrictions, they may be blocked for up to 1 week in the event of repeated violations. 
 * Both users are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).  

 The alternative to the above set of remedies is this one: 
 * Abtract and Collectonian are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either user violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.) 
 * Both users are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).  

 I think that's about it.   1