Declined. IP and now a new account are behaving more and more like bad-hand sockpuppets. Log in to your regular account if you wish to file an unban request, and stop using hosting ranges to hide yourself. Additionally, you will not be blocked for defending ScottyBerg, but you stand a good chance of getting blocked if you continue making new sock accounts or finding new IP socks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this user should be unbanned and that the arbitration committee were wrong to ban in the first place, given the very circumstantial nature of the evidence. While ScottBerg may possibly be a sockpuppet, it cannot be conclusively demonstrated and therefore he should be allowed to continue contributing to Wikipedia, if he so wishes to. I am presenting this appeal anonymously to avoid this suggestion from affecting my reputation as a Wikipedian. I will not further participate in the discussion. --23.20.151.72 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ScottyBerg is a productive editor with 2 year's experience and 12,000 edits, and a clean record (minus the sockpuppet investigation which was conducted in secret using secret evidence). Even if he is this other editor, whatever conduct issues they might have had in the past have obviously been corrected otherwise he wouldn't have been able to accumulate 12,000 edits over two years without any issue. Productive editors who aren't causing any problems should not be blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note Filing IP is from an Amazon hosting range and may be a sockpuppet of somebody. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know this IP which is making this appeal anonymously isn't ScottyBerg himself presenting a reason to be unblocked via a new sockpuppet? Not accusing, just saying.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this - This is clearly a person with a real account editing via IP solely to evade detection. Perhaps it is a current editor, perhaps a banned one, perhaps it is scottyberg himself pulling a fast one. That's why IP editors should be kept out of AN, ANI and related discussions. I have no hat in the ring of scottyberg's identity, but clearly this request has no merit. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close - with No unblock. per Tarc.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – If we are talking about this person and not necessarily the account, then we need to change the subject's to User:Mantanmoreland. --MuZemike 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and what if ScottyBerg really isn't Mantanmoreland? In such a case, it would be impossible for him to ever get unblocked because he wouldn't have the password to the account. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why the hell are we even talking about unblocking, then, aside to inflate some people's misguided sense of social justice out there? Of course, there is likely also Wiki-political reasons to unban/unblock. --MuZemike 18:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if ScottyBerg truly isn't Mantanmoreland, then he either needs to convince ArbCom or the community. This discussion serves no purpose. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose According to the WP:List of banned users, the puppeteer had a history of abusing socks to bring off-wiki controversies to Wikipedia, and after ArbCom limited him/her to one account he/she violated that restriction. The proposal by an anon IP is suspicious. If the IP was really an editor in good standing than using their actual account would have made me much more likely to vote Support. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close with no unban. The community is under no obligation to honor requests posted by unidentified socks (and yes, logging out to avoid scrutiny on one's main account is considered socking), especially when for all we know it's the banned user himself socking to post the request. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If User:Alison's considered analysis of the evidence is that ScottyBerg is a sock of Mantanmoreland, I have absolutely no reason to doubt her judgment. I especially have no reason to doubt her judgment if all the other checkusers and arbs who have also seen the evidence agree with the finding. 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I am unarchiving this, as I am not a troll, and now have created an account under my real name to file this request. Seriously guys. --JohnPGordon (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnPGordon: You said you were a Wikipedian. They were asking you to use your regular account, not a brand new one using your real name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be blocked as the next "sock" of Mantmoreland. Period. --JohnPGordon (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors spoke out in defense of Scottyberg and none were blocked as sockpuppets. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JohnPGordon, you may want to review our sock puppetry policy, where it is clearly stated that undisclosed alternate accounts, such as the one you are using, may not be used to edit project space. 28bytes (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think he is well aware of what he is doing. --MuZemike 18:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, User:Claritas? Awaits "If it weren't for you meddling kids" statement. --MuZemike 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close per Tarc. No prejudice against the user requesting unban but it would be a terrible precedent if we let a sock do the asking. --John (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prioryman was recently blocked due to what appears to be an inadvertent violation of WP:ARBCC sanctions. When those sanctions were enacted, they were applied to the account that Prioryman was using at that time. Prioryman invoked his right to vanish with that account, but he returned and is on his third account since then, by my count. The logging of the recent block seems rather convoluted "Prioryman (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for violation of sanctions (while not named above, he is also subject to these sanctions per ArbCom). He was unblocked after admitting error (made inadvertently) and promising not to do it again". There was a discussion about some of these issues on the ArbCom talk page last summer, but as the recent logging shows, the situation has not improved.

Sanctions are an agreement between an editor and the community not to engage in actions that have proven in the past to be problematic. Prioryman's many sanctions (both ArbCom and other) are not listed under his current account name, making it impossible for the community to determine if Prioryman is abiding by those sanctions. I request that all sanctions which apply to Prioryman be properly logged (either by adding new entries of simply updating the username) and that sanctions which are logged correctly identify the sanction which applies to the user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions in question are both ArbCom and community imposed. Since the enforcement of any sanction is necessarily done by admins, why would AN not be the appropriate place for this discussion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only pages you linked to were ArbCom pages; presumably if you want ArbCom to explicitly add Prioryman to the list of accounts topic-banned from climate change, they're capable of saying yes or no to that request. Also, didn't you just request an interaction ban with Prioryman? Why are you still opening noticeboard threads about him if you want to not interact with him? 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was quite clear that I wanted all of Prioryman's sanctions to be properly recorded, not just the ArbCom ones. If there are other users who have sanctions listed under previous usernames, I would like those to be updated also, but this is the only such case that I am aware of at the moment. I asked for Prioryman to be banned from mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes, which I would still like to see, but this has nothing to do with his behaviour or actions, simply the correct recording of sanctions and proper logging of violations. Perhaps you wouldn't mind re-opening the thread now that you understand what I was asking? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've told you elsewhere, it's none of your business, and furthermore it's yet more pathetic petty harassment - you were lucky to avoid a ban last time I highlighted your misconduct. Didn't you request an interaction ban with me? Whatever happened to your apparent wish to disengage? Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions, especially community-imposed sanctions, are the entire community's business. The sanctions exist - why would you object to having them properly recorded? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through, it really doesn't seem a major issue given the context. The block was logged by a sitting arbitrator and so it appears Arbcom does not want to openly link these accounts (even though it is public knowledge). As far as I was aware the only listed sanctions against Prioryman are via Arbcom (the Scientology one, which is listed for both his previous and current account, and Climat Change, which admittedly isn't - and indeed isn't listed on Editing Restrictions). If you would like to list the active community sanctions against Prioryman's previous accounts I am sure someone will go through and update the notes. To update Arbcom sanctions you do need to talk to Arbcom. Given your prior interactions with this user (I thought you were both voluntarily under interaction bans??) this was probably not a good way to have gone about the issue, though. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC has refused an offer of a mutual voluntary interaction ban and he has already been told that this issue has nothing to do with him. The fact is that he is a troll and serial harasser who narrowly avoided being banned from Wikipedia in January for harassing and outing another editor off-wiki (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal). He is currently maintaining a thread on me on Wikipedia Review and his latest foray above is just another chapter in his campaign of harassment and vigilantism on and off-wiki. The closing administrator in the earlier discussion on DC's conduct castigated what he called DC's "WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior". DC demonstrates this on a virtually daily basis with his attacks on other editors on Wikipedia Review, and unfortunately this is just another example of the same thing, evidently in revenge for the earlier ban proposal (which I raised). In short, please do not feed the troll. Prioryman (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, I am currently under two interaction bans, which are listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. The community can see them and, if they wish to, check that I have not violated those sanctions. Since you have had a number of different accounts since your sanctions were imposed, I am asking that they be updated to point to your current username. If there are other cases were this applies, I would ask that those listings be updated as well, but yours is the only case of which I am aware. This is really just a procedural request, although there may be issues related to yoru prior exercise of WP:Right to vanish, so it is worth having a discussion. You are the one adopting a battleground mentality here by making accusations and name-calling. I would happily accept a mutual interaction ban, provided it was binding and that it excluded dispute resolution processes, as I have said before. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not not get off down this track (slinging accusations) or I will close down this thread - but if you both want a voluntary interaction ban I will happily "impose" one on you. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very happy for you to do so, frankly. DC refused an earlier offer of a voluntary interaction ban when I proposed that he should respect it off-wiki as well, i.e. not continue his ongoing harassment thread on Wikipedia Review. It should also be a total interaction ban from all forums on Wikipedia, including dispute resolution, which he has abused as one of his main vehicles for harassing other editors. His refusal says much about his lack of willingness to disengage. Without an interaction ban these collisions between us will keep occurring - not because of anything I'm doing, but because of his ongoing battlefield mentality and his malicious agenda. So if you want to avoid that, please, by all means, impose an interaction ban, though DC should really be banned from Wikipedia as a whole given his history of vile behaviour. Prioryman (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that dispute resolution processes be excluded from the ban, specifically arbitration enforcement, but since it seems that both Prioryman and myself now desire for an interaction ban to be imposed, so ErrantX, if you would like to impose one, please do. Given Prioryman's record, I would prefer that it be imposed and binding, rather than voluntary. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What DC is looking for here is a partial disengagement on terms favourable to him, to allow him to continue attacking me on and off-wiki while hindering my ability to call out his misconduct. It's a typically cynical approach. If there is to be disengagement, let it be total. An end to interaction must include dispute resolution processes because that is one of the primary means through which DC has carried out his vindictive harassment of multiple editors, using Wikipedia Review to whip up antagonism against specific individuals. We saw this in the case that I raised on AN/I in January that brought him to the brink of a site ban. DC seems to think that he is empowered to act as a vigilante. He makes very few edits in article space (check out his contributions) and appears to spend most of his time on Wikipedia on various noticeboards or on Wikipedia Review attacking other editors. It would actually be a very positive step to ban DC from noticeboards (specifically AN, AN/I, RFC and arbitration-related. If he has any interest in improving the encyclopedia he has yet to show it, frankly. I also repeat my earlier call for DC to commit to disengaging off-wiki as well, by ceasing his repeated attacks on me on Wikipedia Review. He has refused this call before, which demonstrates how insincere he is about wishing to disengage. If he is sincere he should agree. Prioryman (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ErrantX, I note that the accounts have already been linked in one listing of editing restrictions. I believe there are other community-imposed or voluntary sanctions that are not listed, aside from several ArbCom sanctions. Perhaps Prioryman can list the sanctions that he is aware of to save some searching? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that this thread was prompted by an admin questioning why Prioryman had recently been blocked for violating sanctions. That admin checked the ARBCC pages and Prioryman's talk page history, but was unable to understand the block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the bringer of the action it would seem logical for you to simply list the sanctions you wish to be updated - I assumed you were aware of them, directly, given that you brought up this matter. I'm willing, personally, to humour what you are doing here to the extent that if you can quickly lay out what needs to be recorded, with the minimum or drama, then it can be all sorted out without fuss. If this is just going to turn into another lengthy slanging match between the two of you then I suspect community patience will become exhausted. (as to the latter issue; that really is something you have to take up with Arbcom - perhaps get a clerk to record the sanction on Editing Restrictions, or whatever). --Errant ^(chat!) 16:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC has conspicuously not brought it up with Arbcom. He is rather obviously trying to do an end-run around them. Prioryman (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a partial list at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2#ChrisO_desysopped, but I recall a more recent and longer list (possibly in the ArbCom case regarding Cirt). I am unable to find it using the search facility here and it is quite likely that some has added a NOINDEX to the page so that it won't show up in Google searches. Prioryman is already participating in the discussion and must be aware of the sanctions he is currently under - it seems a bit silly not to just ask him to list them so that they can be properly recorded. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls don't have the right to make demands. Prioryman (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed interact ban between Delicious carbuncle and Prioryman

Well, this is getting tedious. Since both parties clearly don't bring out the best in each other, I'd like to propose an interaction ban. Specifically, I'd like to propose an extended ban that covers off-wiki taunting (or "discussion", if you prefer) as well as a ban on using noticeboards to further these disputes:

• Delicious carbuncle and Prioryman are banned from interacting with each other in any way, including:

1. editing each other's user and user talk space for any reason;
2. replying to each other in discussions;
3. referring to or commenting on each other anywhere on Wikipedia or off, either directly or indirectly; or
4. undoing each other's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

• In addition, the exceptions listed in WP:IBAN would not apply:

1. no reverting each other, period.
2. no more noticeboard threads.

These terms are a little stricter than the standard terms for an interaction ban, but as has been pointed out, an interaction ban that allows one party to continue to annoy another with off-wiki postings and repeated noticeboard threads isn't much of an interaction ban at all, and it's clear one is needed between these two editors.

• Support as proposer. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How in the world are we supposed to restrict anything done off-wiki? Nyttend backup (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usual way: an editor can present a link to an uninvolved admin, and if it's clear a party is not following the terms of the interaction ban, that admin can follow the usual warn/block/escalated block process. 28bytes (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your use of the words "the usual way" implies that this is a normal part of interaction bans. I am not aware of any other interaction ban which includes such a provision. This would be an open opportunity for anyone who bears a grudge against me to make statements off-wiki which are critical of Prioryman and sign my name to them. It has happened to me before. A Google search for my username will bring up comments -- that I did not make -- about a since-banned person with whom I was in a dispute. This suggestion is simply ridiculous and would set a very bad precedent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - the off wiki clause in this suggestion appears to only relate to DC because there is no suggestion Prioryman has been commenting off wikipedia about anything, and translates as, if Delicious comments, directly or indirectly, about Prioryman at all on wikipedia review he will be blocked onwiki, is that corect? - Also , is it correct that this suggestion would not allow , Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution? Youreallycan 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dispute resolution would be limited to asking uninvolved admins for assistance, or contacting ArbCom if that's found to be unsatisfactory. The idea, though, is if they aren't interacting, there shouldn't be disputes to resolve. 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Although 28bytes attempted to close the original thread on specious grounds and stated that they would likely not participate when they agreed to let me reopen it, a few hours later they are proposing an extraordinary interaction ban. This is a completely unnecessary action, since both Proryman and I have agreed that ErrantX should impose an interaction ban. Any kind of sanction that includes off-wiki activities is unenforceable. I have no intention of laying myself open to false accusations from Prioryman who lied in his attempt to have me banned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell you what, since you've both agreed to let ErrantX implement an interaction ban, I will withdraw my proposal and let him decide what the terms of the ban should be. My recommendation to him would be not to allow loopholes that allow offsite poking or the use of noticeboards here to further disputes, but I will defer to his judgment and let him make the call. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds fine to me. Thanks for all your help. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be entirely happy with 28bytes' proposals. DC's concerns about supposed "forged" posts in his name is entirely bogus. He is user 5544 ("Carbuncle") [4] on Wikipedia Review and unless he's in the habit of sharing his login details with other people, anything that user posts is directly attributable to him. The need for an interaction ban that extends off-wiki is shown by the fact that in the space of less than two weeks this month, he has posted about me five times on WR - that's almost every couple of days, an almost obsessive level of attention. Youreallycan is right that I've not commented off-wiki about anything, so there really is nothing comparable on my side. 28bytes is also right that there shouldn't be disputes to resolve, and in fact there aren't - DC is creating issues, and needless drama, by intervening in matters that don't involve him. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, the sanctions which you are under are the concern of everyone in the community, even me. As of right now, the community is hampered in evaluating whether or not you have kept to those sanctions, because they are listed under User:ChrisO, not your current username. Some may not be listed at all. They are not secret, yet you have refused to list them simply because I was the person who requested it. The drama here is not being caused by my simple request, but by knee-jerk reactions from you and 28bytes. Your bluster has managed to divert the conservation away from the subject at hand -- recording your snactions and logging your violations -- to the tired topic of how discussing your edits off-wiki is somehow harassment. I have no intention of accepting any kind of restriction which imposes limits on what I can say on other websites. I have suggested that dispute resolution processes are exempted from any interaction ban so that either of us may use them if necessary. That is where you should be making your allegations, not on admin's talk pages in attempts to have me sanctioned for what should be drama-less procedural requests such as this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I guess that the ChrisO commenting on Christopher Monkton here is not you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is exactly this kind of needless taunting, and digging up of ancient off-wiki links, that needs to be stopped. It contributes nothing and only raises the temperature. It's blatant WP:BAITING and yet another example of your persistent battleground mentality. You are the aggressor here and a very persistent and tiresome one at that. Prioryman (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • And that is exactly the kind of diversionary tactic I would expect when you are again caught in a lie. To set the record straight about who the "agressor" is in this dispute, I do not believe I had any interaction with you until you involved yourself in the ArbCom case regarding User:Cirt. You quite blatantly lied about your previous involvement with Scientology-related articles and proceede to attack me there. I do not know what inspired your antipathy toward me, but you were hostile from that first introduction. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Enough. One more comment from either of you on the other, including in this thread, and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal Beam both editors down to Cheron, leave orbit Warp 8. Or in wikispeak- indef both and be done with it. Nobody Ent 20:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captain, I don't know how much more emergency power we can take before we start to break up. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone just pass the interaction ban and get on with it? Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent Errant an email requesting actioning of the interaction ban - if you guys just return to your corners and enjoy yourselves elsewhere till then - that seems to be the best idea - thanks - Youreallycan 20:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Resolution

Ok; sorry that I have been AFK for a bit :) It looks like this degraded, as I feared it would - I came back online to find a number of people asking me to come in and comment further, or close, this. Here is what I suggest, given that you both simply cannot get along.

• A full on-wiki interaction ban between the two of you stopping any interaction, of any sort. excluding dispute resolution processes.
• We can't really enforce an off-wiki interaction ban, however if Prioryman wishes to raise issues of off-wiki harassment (no comment either way on whether that has happened or not) I recommend, if he wishes, an RFC/U where he can demonstrate an issue and request sanction. Such an RFC/U would be exempt from the interaction ban, but with a very low tolerance threshhold for the slanging match going on above.
• I will contact Arbcom in the next couple of days in relation to DC's opening request in this section, regarding the recording of sanctions against Prioryman (but only once this has died down) and see if I can resolve that matter.

Hopefully that addresses *everyones* complaint... if you're happy with that please just briefly say so below (no more slanging matches) and we'll do that. (the alternative is I slap a broad interaction ban on you both now, as the community seems to be getting tired of pointless bickering of the sort above). --Errant ^(chat!) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interaction ban that excludes dispute resolution processes is not acceptable. DC's favourite venue is "dispute resolution" noticeboards, generally defined. Read what he said above: "I ask that dispute resolution processes be excluded from the ban, specifically arbitration enforcement." That's a clear statement of intent that he wants to continue hounding me. There needs to be a total disengagement. I do not have an ongoing dispute against DC. DC, on the other hand, keeps raising disputes against me on and off-wiki, as this thread has shown. This needs to end once and for all. No more loopholes. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a loophole? Don't do anything that would require dispute resolution with DC. That way, if it is attempted, it would be obvious to everyone that it is without merit. Arkon (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC doesn't contribute to article space in any significant way. We have no overlap in terms of editing articles. However, he seems to have taken it on himself to "police" my edits and has repeatedly and spontaneously intervened in matters that simply don't involve him, as in this case. He has harangued both me and the Arbcom about my edits (and got slapped down for his troubles, I might add). He's shown every sign of intending to continue to do so. Virtually all of our interactions to date have been in the context of "dispute resolution". Put simply, if you want this dispute to end, you need to stop him interacting with me in any venue on Wikipedia. ErrantX has suggested a broad interaction ban. I'm all for that. Prioryman (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tweaked that out and reworded it (and the section). However I suspect now DC won't like it. It makes it very hard to find a middle ground and get you both to disengage. If that doesn't work, then 28bytes suggestion above, via community consensus, is likely our last avenue. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Frankly I couldn't care less whether DC likes it. The bottom line is that there needs to be a permanent end to this dispute, and that simply can't happen if there isn't a total disengagement on both sides. I don't want to perpetuate this but DC has given clear notice that he wants to perpetuate it. That's why only a total disengagement will work. And I'm quite happy with 28bytes' suggestion, by the way. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, by the way, did you start this dispute between the two of you? Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fut. Perf. has asked that DC and I not comment on each other, so I'm not going to take that particular WP:BAIT, thank you very much. Prioryman (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My aim here is to put an end to the constant on-wiki attacks, allegations, lies, and vitriol from Prioryman. That was why I asked for a topic ban weeks ago and why I am willing to accept a reasonable compromise now. To be clear, when I say "dispute resolution processes", I am not referring to either WP:AN or WP:ANI (both would be included in any such ban). If it helps, I can agree to limit myself to arbitration enforcement, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and RFC/U participation. As noted by Cla68, an RFC/U is not something that I can launch without a co-endorser, so I assume that no one would object to my participation in an RFC/U involving Prioryman should one ever be initiated. Similarly, if Prioryman had genuine concerns about my off-wiki activities, an RFC/U would probably be the place to have that addressed, and I would have no objection to one being filed by him. It seems perverse to bar someone from highly moderated administrative processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, all those fields are included in the ban. And I strongly recommend you should begin acting as if it was already in force, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect, I'm not seeing consensus yet for the restrictions as requested, so I don't think DC, or Prioryman, is bound by them yet. I for one, am opposing the proposal until it allows DC to be a co-signer on any future user conduct RfCs. DC and Prioryman, I recommend not accepting the proposed interaction restriction as currently written. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, I disagree with including dispute resolution processes in the interaction ban. As you know, user conduct RfCs require two or more endorsers. DC should retain the option of being an endorser on any future user conduct RfCs posted on Prioryman, as DC does have a legitimate grievance with Prioryman [5]. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That kind of squabble is exactly what this interaction ban is meant to end, so it would be rather silly to leave a loophole for further continuing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • RfCs are very helpful at resolving disputes, as they invite broad community input. So, I think it would be more helpful to allow RfC than to to ban it. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely not - allowing RfC or arbitration enforcement is just another way of saying that you want the dispute to continue. If it is to end, there must be a total disengagement and there must be no room for fresh arguments to be started (and do please note that I didn't start this thread). Prioryman (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a curious asymmetry here: the original issue is that Prioryman had a comment deleted and was blocked for inadvertently breaching WP:ARBCC#Scope of topic bans by participating in a discussion about the topic ban on another editor: as discussed elsewhere other topic banned editors had apparently participated in that discussion, but were not blocked. One of them, Cla68, is participating above, arguing to extend the venues for this dispute. On precedent, Cla's contributions here should be deleted, and a token block imposed on his record. Whether that is done or not, a complete disengagement with the same wide-ranging scope as the ARBCC is appropriate and has my support. . . dave souza, talk 09:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we are at an impasse then? One wants total disengagement, the other wants certain avenues to remain open. Realistically I don't see how this will work out for both of you and, to be honest, I don't see how this can be solved except without some sort of community discussion (unfortunately). I have wasted a little while digging into this sorry mess, so some thoughts:

• DC, given your past history with this user it was, at the very least, extremely bad judgement to have opened this request - and insisted it remain open. (FWIW the right avenue might have been to privately ask an uninvolved user to raise the issue). Given that you recently expressed a desire to have no interaction with prioryman you are definitely at fault here for persisting the matter.
• I am struggling to see exactly why dispute resolution would be needed as an exemption; is the suggestion that no one else is capable of keeping an eye on prioryman and raising issues with his editing? Or is the intention to contribute to future DR raised by other editors? In either case, I don't really see the urgent need.
• Publicly commenting on users off-wiki with whom you have a dispute on-wiki strikes me as the height of bad manners, and simply fuels the fire.

The fact you, DC, now have multiple interaction bans against you indicates a continuing problem. Flicking through your recent & older contributions I notice you spend a lot of time pursuing perceived problem editors, and other forms of "policing". This is not in itself a major issue, someone has to, but it looks like your approach leaves a lot to be desired. I recommend reflecting strongly on how you interact with others, and consider spending more time contributing article content - it can be a relieving process :)

• Prioryman; DC has raised an important point here, that you may have active sanctions against you that are not receiving scrutiny. I'd strongly encourage you to take steps to correct the recording of all those sanctions - if for nothing else then to avoid the perception of impropriety.
• Your hands are far from clean in this dispute, and there are a number of recent incidents you could simply have not been involved in by virtue of not taking part... so I counsel burying yourself in content work and ignoring anything else for a bit.

Both of you need a good shake, and to be set down somewhere far away from each other. And you need to stop commenting on, pursuing or raising issues with each other (both on and off wiki). There are plenty of other people capable of doing that for both of you. Absolutely nothing seems to be gained by allowing the two of you any leeway in interaction, but much (mostly peace and quiet) seems to be served by splitting you up. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much engaged in content work (see [6]) and I have absolutely no wish to interact further with this individual. I didn't want to on this occasion and nobody asked him to start this thread. I'm not involved in any content disputes with him or any other editor, we have no overlap in terms of article editing and I'm certainly not engaged in providing a running commentary on him on or off-wiki. My record of contributions speaks for itself and has attracted a great deal of praise from other editors (see my user page), with whom I'm working in perfect harmony. The last thing I want is to be repeatedly dragged into disputes by people who have taken it on themselves to "police" my edits. That's why I want a total disengagement, and I agree completely that nothing can be gained by allowing any leeway, such as a "dispute resolution" loophole. As for the past sanctions, I will be having a discussion with the Arbcom about that. Prioryman (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On a related note, Future Perfect at Sunrise owes Delicious Carbuncle 10 cents. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever else we do here, could we please ensure that Prioryman's sanctions he accrued under his earlier accounts are clearly logged? He already misrepresented his past once, invoking RTV, and then returning and claiming last year to have no prior involvement and no knowledge of a topic area in which he was and is under sanctions. It seems to me we are talking about everything here but Prioryman's prior sanctions. So what are the prior sanctions? What, if any, community sanctions are there, in addition to the three arbitration cases? We really do need to establish that. JN466 02:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]