YRC did not out Prioryman. He was accused of it and it was probably prudent to oversight the comment while it was investigated, but Prioryman has already acknowledged his real name on-wiki. This appears to be a good-faith error on Nomoskedasitcity's part. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just wondering... is the editor he's allegedly trying to "out" damaging wikipedia in some way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is the "outing" of a person whose identity is already widely-known and used by the person himself, though? That is usually the sticking point when the collection of WR/Wikipediocracy/WMUK luminaries gets into a spat for the nine-hundred-and-thirty-third time. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That point is indeed an issue from time to time. If an editor has made his identity known, he has no basis for crying "Outing!" No way for us peons to tell in this case, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OUTING is clear: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Mentioning old usernames is fine, mentioning non-voluntarily-disclosed full real names is not. Prioryman (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, you identified your real name on-wiki. Since then it's been common knowledge who ChrisO is. Your friends here address you by your real name and you don't demand oversight and banning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Precisely. So how do we know this was non-voluntary? And was the alleged "outee" engaged in damaging wikipedia? Not that that justifies public disclosure, though. Things like that should be handled behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So in the hypothetical scenario of an old username being the person's actual name, or a reasonably close approximation thereof, said hypothetical person gets perpetual immunity from anyone ever pointing that out? Tarc (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The username didn't include the surname, which is, obviously, much more identifying than a first name.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the outing for some greater purpose, i.e. to prevent damage to wikipedia? Or was the alleged "outer" just being a jerk? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bugs, sorry for repeating myself here, but as I said below - 'Prioryman is currently the target of an off-wiki hate website whose staff are known for proposing visiting London with boxcutters "to slit a few throats". (I'll send you a screenshot if you like.) Yes, he's currently their top target (I think it was Jimbo before, but I don't really keep up with such things.) And yes, they love to "research" WP editors' locations and identities in order to facilitate this sort of "boxcutter" behaviour.' --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this page (or possibly AN) had an otherwise-unrelated case recently about off-wiki activity in which it was concluded that wikipedia cannot control off-wiki behavior. However, a direct threat of violence is never good. Has YRC himself, either on or off wiki, directly threatened anyone with physical harm? P.S. No link or picture needed. I'll take your word for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice question, but no, of course he hasn't. Then again, if the instigator (Andreas) were so innocent, he could've waited a half-respectable amount of time before turning up here to put the metaphorical knife into the target (Prioryman) after YRC already did what was needed. I've been asked before to make clear that I am not accusing Andreas or Dan Murphy/Daniel Murphy themselves of threatening to use boxcutters on British Wikimedians' throats. Oh, and sure we can't control what people do on other websites. But we shouldn't be encouraging or facilitating this sort of thing. In my personal opinion, people like that should not be permitted on this website. It's a project to build an encyclopedia, not a project to see how many people you can "hunt down" and threaten. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. So an interaction ban in both (or all) directions should be the right solution - with a lengthy block for any violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000, I am very disappointed by the way in which you are defaming my husband – a smart, funny, and wonderfully loving man, and a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia – by trying to associate him with a snippet of a joke made by one of the more acerbic critics on Wikipediocracy. That critic also qualified his comment by saying that the WMUK clique simply wouldn’t be worth his time, which is something you consistently fail to mention on here whenever you try to establish that non-starter of a meme. You wrote: "Then again, if the instigator (Andreas) were so innocent, he could've waited a half-respectable amount of time before turning up here to put the metaphorical knife into the target (Prioryman) after YRC already did what was needed."

Just so you know, Andreas/Jayen466 is the kind of person who would never raise a knife, metaphorically or otherwise, against another living creature. In fact, this beautiful husband of mine will spend ages "hunting down" bluebottles, wasps, and even mosquitos in our house, glass in one hand, discarded envelope in the other, and, once caught, escort the various critters to the safety of our backyard, all out of a heartfelt belief in doing no harm.

I admire my husband for not rising to the many insults you, Prioryman, and the rest of your cronies have been lobbing at him in various WP forums. Sure I'm biased. But at least I for one have never made a secret of my love and appreciation for my husband and his delectable personality.

Now, against the backdrop of you stating on your user page that you live in the United Kingdom, could you please explain your connection to UK resident Prioryman and to WMUK? Also, in light of you vehemently opposing any kind of "censorship of the main page", could you do me a solid and look up Twitter Joke Trial before accusing an accomplished US audio engineer, inventor, and businessman with plenty more interesting things to occupy his time than socializing with WMUK "volunteer" types of murderous intent just to help out one of your WMUK buddies? Thank you! Draco^E 02:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Full Ban - He had his chances, he blew it. He's been highly combative and I doubt that he will change. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I saw the edit that has been revdeled. I would feel more comfortable if an admin (besides me) who either saw it or who has oversight capabilities would comment on whether what YRC put on his talk page constituted outing. With the exception of one piece, which may or may not be known, the material seemed public to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Jdforrester's comment above. --Rschen7754 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, and thanks, Prioryman (for above). So, let's be clear. We are proposing a full indefinite ban for the outing. We certainly wouldn't ban YRC if he edit-warred on his own talk page as he has the right to control his own talk page (with very limited exceptions). So, my next question is which condition does outing violate? We should be precise in these things, and we shouldn't rush to judgment, even if the ultimate decision is for a full ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the 1RR restriction from the RfC is a universal one - it's not limited to any area of Wikipedia, whether article space, talk pages or user talk pages - so the edit-war on his user talk page would indeed count as a violation. Further, the normal 3RR does not apply when reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.[8] One form of content that breaches those guidelines is "Personal information of other persons without their consent."[9] YRC reverted to this at least five times, violating both the universal 1RR and 3RR, which applied because the content being reverted breached the guidelines. Prioryman (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's extremely helpful, Prioryman, thank you for taking the trouble to connect the dots.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support full indefinite site ban for violating first, second and probably third condition from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#YRC Proposal.--В и к и T 23:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But he hasn't done any of those things. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support full ban and since there's nonpublic information involved, appeals should go right to WP:BASC. --Rschen7754 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information you refer to is very public. ChrisO pointed to his real name on-wiki and it's been well-known here ever since. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Strategic oppose, this is something ArbCom should handle. --Rschen7754 21:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban. I looked at the edits in question, and I agree that they were utterly inappropriate. YRC knew that and didn't care. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that doesn't make it true. (I saw the edits too.) YRC addressed Prioryman/ChrisO by his real name. Prioryman has acknowledged his real name on-wiki and has been addressed by that name here more than once in the past with no complaint, not a peep. This is about gaming YRC off the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheesh. What happens when you throw Prioryman, Jayen466, and YRC into a discussion? One ban, for starters, a bunch of fire and brimstone stinking up the place, and bad press coverage. You all should group yourselves under the user category "Wikipedia crusaders", and for practical purposes we should assume that in any given discussion you are all wrong. I had a look at this Wikipediocracy site, for the first time--holy shit, what a crock. "To expose the corruption!" Onward, soldiers of the truth. BTW, I support the ban for YRC--enough is enough. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I saw part of this in real time on Jimbo's talk page. YRC was edit warring to repeatedly insert an editor's real name against that editor's will. Personally, I don't really care whether or not said editor's name had already previously been revealed - and I don't know whether that is the case. It was a clearly antagonistic action that served no benefit to either the discussion or Wikipedia. So, per YRC's own proposal in their RFCU, I've little option but to support. Resolute 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full site ban - As Drmies says, enough is enough. Jusdafax 00:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is not how I would have envisioned YRC's tenure ending at Wikipedia. I would have expected him to go out in a blaze of self-righteous BLP glory. Instead, it comes down to a personal feud with another editor. I suppose the symptoms are the same (YRC's inability to control himself), but it still saddens me. What a waste.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the moment, I am striking my vote, partly per Wehwalt's initial comment below and partly based on Andreas's diffs. I can't sort out the diffs, frankly, i.e., whether they are enough to constitute voluntary disclosure, but at this point I can't support a ban without the outing being clear. Everything else, in my view, is derivative of the alleged outing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ban per Resolute (i.e. given all YRC's past history, the ban is justified by the edit warring to re-insert the person's name even if the name was already known). YRC clearly hasn't let go of his drama addiction and we have to face that he is doing the project more harm than good. That said, the other person has also been something of a dramaphile in multiple conflicts recently, and should tone it down. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Outing = Ban pbp 00:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Who is YRC supposed to have outed? If it was Prioryman, then please bear in mind that Prioryman has revealed his identity here on Wikipedia, on at least two occasions, and so did arbcom. These edits are live today. His name can also be found on a fair number of talk pages where other people have called him by his real name. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This bears looking into. If Prioryman himself has disclosed his full real name ("unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information"), then I don't see how this constitutes outing. Also, per policy, if Prioryman disclosed his full real name but later redacted it, then what YRC did would still be outing ("If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia").--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Prioryman redacted it on YRC's user-talk page, today. It was a violation the very first time YRC restored it there. The subsequent edit-warring he conducted was absurd. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Until someone gives a real explanation instead of this tip-toeing that's going on. It's now provided, and demonstrates that the "outing" claim is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Prioryman's name was revealed by arbcom in the findings of fact here and here when it was noted that he had cited self-published materials. ChrisO confirmed that he was indeed the author on the talk page. [10][11] AndreasKolbe JN466 00:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• His name is also mentioned in full by Tony Sidaway for example on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1. And a number of other talk pages. So why was Tony Sidaway not banned? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good. You have demonstrated that the outing claim is thoroughly bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems an entirely opportunistic use of WP:OUTING. Say nothing when a friend (or arbcom ...) uses your name on wiki, and clamour for a ban if it is an enemy. Prioryman knows full well that his name is on this wiki, and that he owned up to it. Is is not the sort of thing you forget. What his conduct reminds me of more than anything is Fair Game (Scientology). Which is really ironic. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • YRC made the false claim that I had edited on Wikipedia under my own real name, which I did not do and have never done. Arbcom did not post my real name back in 2006. It posted, without my consent, links to off-wiki writings which other editors - not myself - had added to Wikipedia articles to use as sources, again without my consent (I have in fact removed such links where I have found them). I have not at any point voluntarily disclosed my full name on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did arbcom have you in a room with thumb screws? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for editing in violation of voluntary restrictions -- that's a breach of trust issue, as well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First demonstrate that he has violated his restrictions. That hasn't been done yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. You can't see any evidence of edit warring? Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has: "As an "oversighter", I can confirm that Youreallycan (talk · contribs) has indeed posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility. I would be content to uphold an indefinite ban on these terms. James F. (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)" -- See also, WP:USERBIO and WP:UP#POLEMIC (bullet point 2), and, WP:NPA.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose At this point, it no longer looks like a clear-cut case, which means I won't vote to support based on evidence not available to me. Suggest a case at ArbCom as they are better suited to deal with this then a bunch of people wondering if they should take each other's word for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do please note that whether or not this constitutes an outing violation, it is most definitely a civility violation and a 1RR violation, and as such YRC is still in breach of his restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be bound by the dead hand of a RfC I took no part in in deciding my !vote on a ban. Unless I am convinced the community is better off without the person, and that is very clear to me, I will withhold my hand. I don't do "ban-of-the-week", either.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is dead-hand about the editing restrictions? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, YRC was under active restrictions that he agreed to be under. He also agreed to a 1 month software-enforced wikibreak which was suggested (by me) in the hope that it would restore his composure. At the end of the 1 month, he reappeared, said he was doing well, and requested another 2 months of enforced break to be certain of avoiding tripping over his 3 month BLP restriction (this is in his talk page history), i.e. he understood then as well, that his restrictions would be enforced. When he came back after the 2 months, he seemed refreshed and hopefully able to edit up to standards. But he immediately returned to his battles and feuds. Even without the outing/non-outing, we're back where we were before the RFC, which closed with some last-resort measures to try instead of a ban even then. So this ban is justified due to YRC's intractable battleground editing regardless of the precipitating incident. Re the immediate incident: AFAICT, there was no excuse (such as a COI situation relevant to the encyclopedia) justifying YRC's calling out another editor's name repeatedly over their objections. He was just doing it to be a dick, coming almost immediately off of a de facto ban. That should be the end of his rope. Enough is enough. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now oppose the ban on its merits per the comments below. You can't unring a bell or out the self-outed.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the way we do things here. As Nobody Ent likes to say, the world is not binary. WP:OUTING gives multiple examples (username changes, self-redactions) of how it's not ok to dredge up personal info buried in obscurity to use against them, even though it's accessible with enough digging if someone else knows where to look. (And redacting something years old would have called attention to it all by itself, so it's not an advisable strategy). Obviously the info's presence on those old pages could be a mitigating factor, but the absence of the slightest justification for the repeated re-additions is an aggravating factor that far outweighs the mitigation. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've long supported YRC for his earnest and genuine efforts, in the past, to protect the interests of living persons unfairly damaged by inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. For some time now he's lost his direction in that, and this is beyond the "final final" straw... his actions appear to be a projection of the boxcutter brigade who are taking every possible desperate measure to act against those who defend the freedom of Wikipedia's main page. Let it be said again - there will be no political censorship of the Wikipedia main page - not for the boxcutter website and not for anyone else - no political censorship, not now and not EVER. I support a ban for this gutless and contemptible conniving with the boxcutter maggots. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the %$*# have boxcutters got to do with this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, was I too vague. Prioryman is currently the target of an off-wiki hate website whose staff are known for proposing visiting London with boxcutters "to slit a few throats". (I'll send you a screenshot if you like.) Yes, he's currently their top target (I think it was Jimbo before, but I don't really keep up with such things.) And yes, they love to "research" WP editors' locations and identities in order to facilitate this sort of "boxcutter" behaviour. (I can't imagine why anyone should be concerned, can you?) Well, you can argue that YRC just kinda got involved at the wrong moment and had no knowledge of any of this. Good luck with that argument. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the talk of "political censorship of the Wikipedia main page" was just more of the usual hype about DYK, Gibraltar, a large wodge of cash (allegedly), and whatever else it is that everyone is getting into a kerfuffle about, then? I wondered whether there had been a military coup or something, from the way you were getting so steamed up about it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - As Prioryman is gaming WP:OUTING policy when it suits his needs. When it has been any number of other users or admins who have used the full name in a discussion (there are examples to be found via simple search of the project), there has been none of this gasping, hemming, hawing, or wringing-of-the-hands; it was just stating whatever one already knew, much like the whole Fae/Ash crap earlier this year. But as soon as YRC does it, out come the tar & feathers? No. You don't get to set up "for me but not for thee" bullshit. Prioryman should be grateful to get out of this with out a king-sized WP:BOOMERANG upside his head. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. YRC is charged here with doing three things:

• A repeated WP:OUTING violation;
• A 1RR violation;
• A repeated civility violation.

All three of these things are violations of his restrictions. Whether or not you believe the outing violation stands up, there is no doubt whatsoever that he engaged in repeated incivility and edit-warring. So even if you dispose of one violation, that still leaves two more. That's indisputable. Prioryman (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the word "indisputable" existed on Wikipedia, certainly not at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the 1RR and civility concerns are largely moot, as the stem from your boy-who-cried-wolf act regarding a non-outing. You don't get to goad someone into such a thing and pretend you can get away with it. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Tarc, I don't think those other users or admins did the type of pointy edit warring that YRC did, and in those other situations Prioryman may have kept quiet because intervening would have attracted unwanted attention (just like this did, except in those other cases there wasn't already a conflict going on). Also, Prioryman may be trying to keep a lower real-life profile now than at those times in the past, which I think we should respect. WP:OUTING quote "also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." This is something like that. The past disclosures would be a balancing factor in some other situations but YRC knew he was skating on thin ice. That's why I expicitly supported the ban independently of whether the name was already known. It was unacceptable harassment no matter what the fine points of "outing" say. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not value the input of IP editors into topics such as this. If you wish to address me and actually want for a response, do it with your actual account. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Tarc, you're saying that if you can subjectively accuse someone of "gaming", then outing is OK? Or are you saying something else?

Outing or attempted outing is not acceptable, ever. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. But the name was already visible on wikipedia, so it wasn't outing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is you can't out someone who has had his name bandied about the project for years. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Unless I am mistaken, the whole "outing" issue is that YRC just said what the "O" in ChrisO, Prioryman's previous account, stands for and Prioryman cried outing even though he knows full well that this is widely known due to the fact that he has been terrible at hiding his real-life identity. Hell, anyone who googles his prior user account and "Scientology", a subject in which Prioryman has edited heavily, will be able to find out his surname in short order. If he noted something more obscure that would be another thing, but if it is just Prioryman's last name then this is just an exercise in pointless drama.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Bollocks There is no restriction on edit warring on your own talk page. And it is time Prioryman was stopped pulling this sort of shit. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• YRC was given, and agreed to, a six-month 1RR restriction. It was purposefully not restricted to any particular content space so that there would be no edit wars of any kind in any content space. That's what's been violated. Prioryman (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You made your identity known, so there was no outing - and therefore no one had a right to edit-war on his user page. The case collapses, and YRC should be unblocked, and politely asked not to do it again because it's uncivil to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not disclose my identity. Nor did I edit under my own name, as YRC falsely claimed that I did. There was no reason for YRC to post that information, as it had no relevance whatsoever to the point he was trying to make. I asked him to desist from posting it and he refused. The whole incident was a completely unnecessary, gratuitous exercise in incivility of a kind which anyone familiar with YRC's conduct will have seen many times before. Prioryman (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Us peons can't see YRC's edits, of course. But if he merely invoked what the "O" stands for, you freely gave that information, as indicated in one of Jayen466's links posted here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification request Darkness Shines, re There is no restriction on edit warring on your own talk page: I believe some of these reverts were not on YRC's talk page, but rather on Jimbo's talk page.[12] Anyone know? 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - YRC actually created his own conditions, as well as the outcome if any of the conditions were broken.[13] There's really no wiggle room when it comes to violating just the 1RR restriction unless the reversions being on his user page somehow exempted them as actual reverts (from an edit warring standpoint). Doc talk 01:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support so far as possible - I will take everyone's word that the content was disgraceful and in any case having seen how YRC behaves in general I'm cool with assuming he's been doing something dick-ish again. Of course if it turns out this outing was not actually outing then I would reconsider. There's no way I can be 100% certain on the basis of edits; but I can be very sure indeed, certainly beyond reasonable doubt, given the trustworthy wikipedians involved. Egg Centric 01:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx3)With all due respect, again bollocks. There is no restriction at all regarding your own talk page. Given your recent outing block perhaps a little leeway may be called for. Your past with this person shows naught but hostility, so forgive my lack of good faith, but it looks to me like you just want this guy banned. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Hm? What does edit warring have to do with it? There is a 1RR restriction and a civility parole, both of which have been breached, according to the evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all he did was post known information, then no one had the right to remove it, and the alleged 1RR violation wouldn't occur. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no restriction on edit warring on your own talk page, look it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Edit warring that says a 1RR applies to user space. If I overlooked something, perhaps the ones claiming otherwise, could point it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1RR restriction he is under covers all the spaces, including user space. Silverseren^C 02:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it explicitly say so? Or is that only an inference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman explained it pretty well [14]: if the reverts were not exempted because of USERBIO, then the 1RR restriction was violated. Doc talk 02:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is unrestricted. Moreover, using personal information on a talk page in an incivil manner violates WP:USERBIO and WP:UP#POLEMIC (bullet point 2), as well as, WP:NPA.Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some dispute about whether he explicitly agreed to an exception to that rule. If he didn't, then all they can get him on is incivility. At worst, an interaction ban (both directions) is called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the bloody hell are you talking about? What outing block? I've had no such thing. None of this thread really makes any sense to me at all. If it's directed at me, then please clarify. Otherwise please move it. Egg Centric 05:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ban. The notification posted by Prioryman was interpreted by me as a poke. The two editors have a long history which extends through both user's previous accounts. This episode began a Jimbo's talk page and escalated from there. The full name, as used by YRC is currently published on Wikipedia, I've just reviewed some links, and they are still published without suppression. Handle this with blocks and I did intend to stipulate that as plural. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question If Prioryman's concern was revelation of his personal information, why was he posting an outing warning on a talk page with 141 watchers before the edit had been redacted? Nobody Ent 01:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To give YRC fair warning not to repeat the edit. If he had respected my wishes and not reverted my removal of my name from his post, nothing more would have been heard about this incident. I was perfectly happy to let it drop. I only contacted Oversight after he had posted the same information four times in a row. There was absolutely no need for him to do so; it was gratuitous incivility. If I'd wanted to get him banned I would have escalated as so on as he posted, which I plainly didn't. Prioryman (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So you didn't particularly care that your name was revealed, just that YRC was repeatedly posting it? Nobody Ent 01:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say that. I did care that my name was revealed. It didn't matter who revealed it. Whoever the offending editor was, I would have redacted it and asked them to refrain from reposting it. I would have expected them to respect my wishes. I didn't want to make a fuss about it because I didn't want to draw attention to it. Unfortunately YRC made it impossible to deal with it quietly. Prioryman (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If one using a user's name in an incivil manner, that's a violation of WP:NPA, as well as WP:USERBIO and WP:UP#POLEMIC (bullit point 2). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)You considered posting a notification of an edit still clearly visible in the history buffer on the talk page of a user under restrictions from a highly contentious RFC dealing with it quietly??? Nobody Ent 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It might have been better to ask someone else (maybe Dennis Brown) to intervene after the first revert (i.e. revdel and tell YRC to not restore the edit). Starting the ANI in retrospect doesn't look to have been such a great idea either. YRC would have been here for something else soon enough anyway. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, to be fair, I didn't start the ANI discussion. I proposed the ban on YRC on the grounds of edit-warring and incivility. The outing was merely the means through which YRC was incivil (and gratuitously so, as it was totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand). Prioryman (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see, you made a long and very visible post early in the ANI, calling for YRC to be banned, but you didn't actually start the thread. In general I think if you're in a dispute with someone, it doesn't come across well to be calling for particular remedies. Best to just say what happened and what issues are involved, and let other people figure out what to do. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support full site ban. Wasn't he supposed to change after the RfC/U and self-imposed ban? That clearly doesn't work, so something external needs to reel him in. Shrigley (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has changed. He has abided by his undertaking. This is a con. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Is it outing, based on the diffs presented above, to say Prioryman's last name on-wiki? Separate question from whether YRC violated anything. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if this is just about what the "O" in "ChrisO" stands for. That information has been on Wikipedia for at least six years in places such as Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_6#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor who posted that, User:Terryeo, was banned in 2006 for outing violations directed against me and, I think, a couple of other people. You evidently found an edit that didn't get deleted - it's merely evidence of an earlier attempted outing. Prioryman (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can quite believe that Terryeo was a troublemaker, but your reaction to his post was effectively to acknowledge that you are indeed the named essayist whilst pointing out that it was not you who linked your essays. Given your on-wiki acknowledgment of your identity in 2006, I can't see how you can be outed in 2012 unless more information is given than just your surname.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman has now doctored the archive I linked above. The version in which he acknowledges his name can be seen at [15] It also includes evidence that even then he was telling half truths as Terryeo links a diff where Prioryman as ChrisO references his own essay in Scientology.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You should probably go and get that oversighted as well. Silverseren^C 02:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban I checked all the links given by Andreas above and did not see a single on-wiki instance of the name being used. Are you referring to off-wiki links made against Prioryman against his will? I'm sorry, but that's not voluntarily outing oneself. And do consider the fact that most of the opposes above are Wikipediocracy members that are conducting a witchhunt against Prioryman on both their website and, it appears, on-wiki. Silverseren^C 01:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seren, the instances I found in an obvious Google search of his previous username and a subject in which he is heavily interested pertained to comments he had made of his own volition on websites under that same username well before he began editing Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm glad to know that you know how to use Google. Unfortunately, WP:OUTING doesn't have an exception for people that know how to use Google. Silverseren^C 02:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This arbitration finding notes that he "restored self-published material". The information is in the diffs arbcom gave; you need to click on them. In addition, he acknowledged on wiki that these are links to sites containing his writings. ChrisO gave a diff in the ARBSCI workshop and on the Proposed decision talk page which showed him removing his full name from a Wikipedia article, and he said he made the edit "to remove my own work as a non-reliable source." AndreasKolbe JN466 02:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OUTING should not be used to protect people who make no serious effort to conceal their identity. That goes up against the whole spirit of the policy. It is to protect someone's privacy, not allow someone to force people to keep quiet about something a child could figure out.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, DA and Kolbe, I guess I'm a child. I searched through those diffs that Kolbe so handily provided (no doubt they have them at the ready always) and it still took me five minutes or more to figure it out. I supposed that makes me stupid, but I don't mind being stupid in the spirit of OUTING as interpreted here by Silver seren. Silver seren, I guess this makes you stupid also. What some of you seem to forget is that you have probably been involved with these disputes for years; you probably send each other Christmas cards. Things that are obvious to you aren't so obvious to others, and that's why this was OUTING. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I am just referring to the fact that anyone who knows his prior account "ChrisO" and a subject in which he has a strong interest "Scientology" will find Prioryman's last name in the first few results of a Google search. Honestly, I think if Prioryman were still editing as ChrisO, few would take this accusation of outing seriously.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Prioryman's recent indef block for attempted outing was reversed.[16] I don't see any reason YRC's indef shouldn't be likewise reversed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not under a six-month community-imposed civility restriction for which a violation means a site ban. That's the difference. The proposed ban here is for violating the civility restriction. Outing was merely the means through which YRC chose to be incivil. Prioryman (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think there's a significant difference between mentioning someone's prior username and mentioning someone's real name. You do understand the difference, right? Furthermore, Prioryman stopped trying to add it once he was informed by the person that they didn't want the name mentioned. Silverseren^C 02:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No outing occurred, so the rest of the case against YRC falls apart. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This was indeed outing. Worse, it was a vindictive outing, rather than an accidental outing. Silverseren^C 02:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it was not outing by YRC. Priory outed himself, albeit 6 years ago. As to the vindictive part, an interaction ban should take care of that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support full site ban. - To intentionally and vindictively jeopardise someones ability to edit Wikipedia anonymously, advertising a user's RL identity for spite when you are well aware that they rather you didn't, is well beyond the pale, as they sometimes say around here. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as you can't OUT an editor with a known identity. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole thing was handled badly from the get-go. On those rare occasions when someone has gone over the line with me, I've had it handled behind the scenes, by a trusted admin. And because this got dragged here, I now know both Priory's former user ID and what it allegedly stands for, which I didn't before. And so does anyone else who has read this discussion. How does that serve anyone's interests here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Outting is a big deal and YRC knew that this would cause issues. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The friction is undoubtedly mutual vide one editor's aattempt to ban YRC for what turned out to be a "Joe Job." Pursuing this further is not in the interests of Wikipedia, and the use of what was clearly a "Joe Job" to attempt to ban an editor I find much worse that the "outing" which wasn't "outing" in any normal sense. Collect (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Can an oversighter display a redacted version of the edit in question?   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  03:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't "the edit in question", it was an edit war with at least 4 reverts re-inserting the info, from what I understand. That's why I find YRC's conduct was so intolerable. I can see some merit to posting redacted versions, or (maybe temporarily) increasing the edits' visibility to normal revdel so admins can look at them. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He's shown himself to be a very disruptive editor over a long period of time. He's had many chances to change, and has always returned to incivility, edit warring, and all-around disruptive behavior. Even if the outing thing is disregarded, he's shown he has no intention of adhering to the restrictions he previously agreed to. Since he agreed to the punishment of a site ban if they were violated, that's what he should get. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...he's shown he has no intention of adhering to the restrictions he previously agreed to." No he hasn't. He's shown the opposite. He has, against most expectations, abided by his undertakings. This is a con. He didn't out the editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose site ban And unblock, per Tarc. Sædon^talk 03:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - YRC has shown again and again that he never believes he is wrong in a conflict, and is incapable of backing away from a fight. Perhaps he was goaded into this one, perhaps not. The fact remains that he has no qualms whatsoever about going into attack mode, and ignoring the rules of Wikipedia whenever it suits him. Even now after twenty blocks, mentoring, and a self-imposed cooling off wikibreak, he comes back and is right into an argument that should cost him his editing career at Wikipedia, and doesn't even care about the rules enough to stop edit warring and ask an admin for assistance. If there's other action against Prioryman, that should be in a different section with its own evidence. YRC has shown us enough to stop wasting time on someone who's only here for conflict. 201.130.178.219 (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
• Oppose ChrisO acknowledged his identity on wiki [17]  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  04:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clear violation of his self-imposed editing restrictions. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Prove it. You can't, because he didn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, he made five reverts in a matter of minutes so there's a 1RR breach. Not to mention incivility. For Christ's sake, how many times does he need to be blocked for you to think he did something wrong. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His 1RR restriction was designed to address a serious problem with his BLP patrolling in article space. He has as much right as you to defend his comments on talk pages. Personally, I think it was thoughtless of him to mention the surname, and ill-advised of him to restore it when it was challenged. But, I know what the 1RR was imposed for, and it was not imposed to allow others to mess with his user talk page edits. There is a world of difference between what's appropriate for an article or article talk page, and what's appropriate in user talk space. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in that RFC, and I remember no such exceptions to the 1RR restriction (and why would it exist if he was also topic banned from BLP's anyways?). I do realize it was in his talk space, which could grant leeway (I can't really comment on how appropriate the removal by other editors was, since it was oversighted). But three editors reverted him, so you'd think that would drive the message home. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not topic banned from BLPs, his behaviour is restricted on BLPs per FormerIP's clarification, here, which is built into the RfC outcome. The 1RR was designed to curb his behaviour on article and article talk pages generally, it was not meant to make it open season on his user talk page contributions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It was a complete 1RR restriction. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ban. From reading this thread, there's obviously some years-long history behind the current dispute, and I don't know about most of it. But I can see that Youreallycan is violating his/her self-proposed editing restrictions, so the decision to ban ought to be pretty easy, regardless of one's feelings about whether "outing" is really outing, or one's own involvement with the users in this dispute. However, I'm not going to be surprised if this thread turns out to be irresolvable and Arbcom takes this on. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean, exactly, "Youreallycan is violating his/her self-proposed editing restrictions"? There has been no credible evidence of that brought here. He's been accused of outing. That's false. Prioryman has identified his real name here. Others have addressed him here by his real name and there have been no consequences. His real name is well-known here. This is just gaming a critic off the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I helped hammer out the restrictions on RfC/YRC with YRC.^[1]

1. Regarding an instance of incivility triggering an automatic site ban: one instance of unequivocal, and generally-agreed incivility should trigger a permanent site ban: that was the intent of YRC's proposal. Instances where incivility is disputed by a significant number of editors who are on neither side of the Prioryman/YRC divide, as is the case here, should not trigger an instant site ban.
2. Neither I nor YRC envisioned 1RR applying to user talk page discussions, certainly not YRC's talk page.
3. The present preventative block should be replaced now by a commitment from YRC (assuming it's forthcoming) to not use the RL name on-wiki while we clarify the outing/not outing question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but YRCs promises of good behavior have turned out to be worth less than doggie doo twenty times in the past. Could you explain why this should suddenly change now? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has suddenly changed now. YRC has been abiding by the commitment he made at his RfC. It was not an outing, since Prioryman has pointed to his real name on-wiki and said, that's me. Others have addressed him by his real name in the past with no complaints from Prioryman. Prioryman is using this as an opportunity to rid himself of a vociferous critic. By all means ban YRC when he breaches his RfC commitment, but doing it now, on a fake, trumped-up instance of non-incivility is very disrespectful of an editor who has, amazingly, and against most expectations, lived up to his commitment. He had every right to restore his comment to his own talk page, if it wasn't outing, and it wasn't outing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's untrue that he was adhering to his commitments in other respects. He was participating in BLPN discussions and discussing BLPs at other venues. He ignored my attempt to caution him in this respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: read the restrictions he agreed to. They include an agreement not to edit BLPs. They do not include an agreement not to edit BLPN or to discuss BLPs. Editing BLPN and discussing BLPs are not violations of his commitment. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, he is under a BLP topic ban which includes starting or involving himself in discussions about the application of BLP, as set out here and here. In the last few days he has edited Talk:Silvio Berlusconi and Talk:Florence Devouard. I believe Nomoskedasticity warned him about doing this. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, his BLP topic ban is narrowly construed.

Three month BLP topic ban - note, conditions as per FormerIP's comments below.[18]

FormerIP's clarification is:

2. For talkspace: do not start or involve yourself in discussions about the application of BLP policy, and abide by BLP policy as it relates to talkpages. Other than that, feel free to mention living people.

On Berlusconi, YRC was discussing category policy:

I don't support such cats, labeling cats at all, but opposes should understand that - readers never ever get to even get to the middle of an article never mind the cats at the bottom - with such a notable person as this - no readers come to the article via the cat list so adding the cats has no value at all - ......improve the article - its rambling and not very good - regards - Youreallycan 21:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC) [19]

On Devourd, he simply did a bit of housekeeping: reformatted a long comment in Frence, added the {{unsigned}} template, translated it into English, and archived it.[20]

All of this is clearly permitted by the editing restrictions proposed by YRC and agreed to by Prioryman. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban: Quite aside from the arguments of other Support advocates, which I find persuasive, sorry: someone with nineteen blocks plainly has a serious problem with the collaborative atmosphere of Wikipedia. I've never been able to wrap my head around the premise that a newbie with a few hundred edits would be indeffed without a blink for a fraction as many offenses. If YRC just cannot deign to follow the rules we all are expected to follow as a matter of course, then he doesn't belong here. Period. Ravenswing 06:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support time-limited ban, perhaps 1 year, based on violation of 1RR condition set at the RFC/U. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full site ban. This was a textbook case of hostile outing; objections to that finding are utterly unconvincing. It matters not a jot to how many people that identity was already known; as long as it was not voluntarily published here by Prioryman himself, YRC has no business throwing it about, period. And he did so for no other reason than provoking and annoying the other side. Enough is enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO/Prioryman pointed to his real name on-wiki, he's been addressed by his real name on more than one occasion before without any of this palaver. This is just him gaming a critic off the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support full site ban. Hostile outing cannot be tolerated. YRC clearly knew what s/he was doing. Toddst1 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. If it was outing. But it wasn't outing, as has been demonstrated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban. Enough is indeed enough. Those examining the 1RR are missing that YRC was antagonistic, and edit warred intentionally to cause distress to another editor. This is not by itself necessarily a bannable offense. However, we are not dealing with that one incident. There is a history here; YRC has been for some time a net loss for Wikipedia. I am sad to say this, because he clearly has enthusiasm and could have been a net positive. He has not chosen to adhere to his promises, however, and has continued to be disruptive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban -- in addition to the obvious violation of the agreed RFC conditions, we have the long history of this editor disrupting Wikipedia in significant ways. On violation of conditions: one point not addressed yet is the way he was also violating the agreement not to engage in BLP discussions. On outing: some have said Prioryman acknowledged his RL identity on Wikipedia, but I've clicked on some of JN's links and it's just not there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the proposer? There is no "obvious" violation of the agreed RFC conditions. You and he have been in serious disputes in the past. I accept that you believed this was outing, that you are not deliberately misleading the community here, but it is clear from Andreas's link in his "comment" just below, that Prioryman identified his real name on-wiki. It is clear from other links provided by Andreas that Prioryman has been addressed by his real name here on more than one occasion before with no complaints, redactions, or drama from Prioryman. This is Prioryman - and you, possibly inadvertently - gaming, conning the community, to silence a critic.--Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not the proposer. I initiated this thread to deal with the outing, but there's nothing at all in my initial post that amounts to proposing a ban. Honestly... On top of that, above when I refer to YRC's violation of agreement to refrain from participating in BLP discussions by posting at BLPN, your response is to ask me, "Where?". Do you really need me to provide you a link to BLPN??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a site ban for a long record of problems and a violation of the 1RR restriction and outing. YRC agreed to a 1RR restriction, with a site ban being agreed as the penalty for breaking that restriction. As he has broken the restriction (there was nothing to say this should not apply to any particular namespace) a site ban is what YRC should expect and get. YRC has previously used up any goodwill/second or third chances he should get. Davewild (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full, indefinite site ban. The outing just tops the long list of problematic editing by this editor. If you break the rules, you're warned, counselled, given second chances. Continuously defying the standards set by the community, and you will be asked to leave. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't outing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To Nomoskedasticity, Future Perfect and others who still claim there was an outing here: Go to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision (permalink) and then click on diff 67, and note how User:ChrisO describes that edit. After doing that, will anyone still claim that ChrisO did not confirm his name in Wikipedia? It is not outing according to Wikipedia policy to refer to someone by the name they have themselves divulged. And note that arbcom, in drafting that finding of fact ChrisO responded to, took it as read that either Chris's surname was out, and/or that the COI overrode any concerns related to it. User:ChrisO redirects to User:Prioryman. And note that this was not in some obscure corner of the wiki, but in the longest (almost six months) and most prominent (widely covered in the press) arbcom case Wikipedia has ever had. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on your links. I don't know what "diff 67" means, though. After clicking on your links, I searched for the surname -- and it's not there. Are you suggesting I need to visit a site off Wikipedia? If so, that would rather confirm the notion that Prioryman has not used his RL name on Wikipedia. Anyway, what we're discussing here is YRC, on which a recap: YRC posted alleged RL info, Prioryman redacted it, and YRC restored it -- in contravention of WP:OUTING and his RFC conditions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search for this string on this page: [67]. [67] is a clickable link on that page. Click on it. Read the diff, and the name ChrisO took out. Then read how he describes that edit. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just to answer your question, No, you do not have to visit a page off Wikipedia. His full name was in mainspace, and he said, with a diff, that he took a reference to himself out of an article. If I call myself User:JoeB in Wikipedia, and I give a diff where I delete the name Joe Bloggs from an article, and explain that that diff shows me deleting a reference to myself from that article, then I have declared that I am Joe Bloggs to anyone who is of sound mind. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kolbe, do you have any idea how ridiculous, even pathetic this sounds? "Go to this page, skip to that page, search this string, click on diff 67, ask the guy in the trench coat--it's right there!" Again I'll cop to being a child, but at first I didn't even know that Prioryman had a different username, so when you all start throwing those links around, maybe you should have given that explanation. Or are you scared to do so, since it actually does constitute outing? It seems pretty obvious to me that if anyone would have to go through some serious clicking and searching, with the added information about the username, then simply giving the RL name is outing. I think you should be happy you got someone else to do the job for you and take the heat for it. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please. His surname is in the diffs of an arbcom finding of fact, he's owned up to it on several occasions, and acquaintances of his have called him his full name to his face on Wikipedia on multiple occasions without him complaining. By the way, I agree that it sounds ridiculous, but I was dealing with an editor who professed himself unable to find a numbered diff on a Wikipedia page. Under those circumstances, there's nowt else a person can do than explain it step by step. AndreasKolbe JN466 15:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support he's broken his self-imposed terms so can't complain William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as this is predicated on there having been an outing, and supported by editors who claim there was one. Well, there wasn't. Go to this page. Find the string [67] on that page, which is a clickable link. Click on it. Read the diff, and the way ChrisO describes that edit. And note that this was in response to an arbcom finding of fact, in probably the most prominent arbcom case ever, which notes that he was restoring references to his own work in mainspace, with diffs linking to that work, where his name is freely available. So please go and ban all arbs of 2009 before you claim there was a ban-worthy outing here. Anyone who continues to claim that there was one deserves no respect. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have another look at WP:OUTING ("If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia"). Again, what we're discussing here is YRC, on which a recap: YRC posted alleged RL info, Prioryman redacted it, and YRC restored it -- in contravention of WP:OUTING and his RFC conditions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did not redact it. It is still there today. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kisses to you, too, darling. He did redact -- he deleted it from YRC's talk page. The violation we are discussing here is YRC's repeated restoration of it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did redact, but he did not redact what he himself had posted previously, which is the whole point of that passage in WP:OUTING. "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia". He did post it, and did not redact it. The passage does not grant blanket permission to you to redact other people's posts. If you say on here, in a prominent place, that you are Joe Bloggs, you don't get to edit-war with me over my talk page posts when I say you are Joe Bloggs, and to ban me for outing just because I repeat what you said before. AndreasKolbe JN466 12:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to point to something existing only in a diff from six years ago, and you rely on that to express approval of what YRC did yesterday, then you are the one who ought to be experiencing some shame right now. I didn't know the surname until yesterday; I imagine there are a great many editors who didn't -- and they could have learned it, if not for the oversighting. OUTING was precisely what YRC intended, and his edit-warring to get it to stick was a disgraceful act. And yet you approve. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 is not six years ago, and there are multiple other places where the name is mentioned and acknowledged by him. Can't you get anything right? AndreasKolbe JN466 12:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, Sir, I did not say anywhere that I approved of what YRC did. Can you please strike that? AndreasKolbe JN466 12:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Outing was YRC's intention, and it was the effect of his actions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above personalizations are not helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not outing to repeat a name that was and remains freely disclosed on-wiki. And people have no right to edit others' talk page posts for spurious reasons. AndreasKolbe JN466 12:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support He has had enough time in the Last Chance Saloon. Warden (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, pretty much per Future Perfect. This is a textbook violation of WP:OUTING and the culture on Wikipedia of excusing outing of editors (see also, Fae) is exceedingly worrying. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not outing to repeat what has been previously disclosed on wiki (by the editor himself and others including arbcom), and never redacted. To describe it as a textbook violation of outing is just bizarre, mate. AndreasKolbe JN466 13:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OUTING talks about a violation as "an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia." Can anyone honestly say that this has transpired? Prioryman plainly acknowledges that he was previously ChrisO. Prioryman proudly displays his contributions to Scientology articles in his userspace. Anyone who knows those two facts can plug those parameters into their Google search bar and find out his last name in two shakes of a feather. How is it then invading his privacy or putting him at risk of harm?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than that, TDA. You don't need to Google at all: the information is on wiki, disclosed on-wiki by Prioryman himself, by arbcom, and by acquaintances like Tony Sidaway. All outlined above. AndreasKolbe JN466 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Practically speaking, I think it is far more compelling that anyone can right now use elementary school-level research techniques to find the information immediately using the most basic on-wiki information. Basically one just has to go, "Hmm I see this person has said he was once ChrisO and is very interested in Scientology. I wonder if 'ChrisO' has said anything about 'Scientology' elsewhere. *searches the Google* Oh my!"--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. per Fut Perf., the outing was hostile and he violated his own conditions. R. Baley (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's not outing. You can't disclose it and then accuse someone of outing for repeating it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's find another solution for YRC. While the rules he agreed to stick to were violated, implying that he should be banned (he also agreed to that sanction), at the time I was against that. I think it's better for us to help YRC to stick to the civility and 1RR restriction. There is always the option of banning YRC, but precisely because YRC did take a hard line with himself at the conclusion of the RFC, a finding that this is a violation of what he agreed to and acknowledgement by him of that, would prevent this sort of incident from being repeated. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His behavior at his own Rfc was breathtakingly out of line, and he only took the "hard line with himself" at his Rfc when it became clear there was an overwhelming consensus for severe sanctions. Yet here he is three months later on Jimbo's page, outing and edit warring again. In my book he has had several chances too many. Jusdafax 16:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of incident has been repeated ad nauseam already. If this were his second or even third block, you might have a point. But this is his twentieth block, and he has more than amply demonstrated that he will never be able to control his behavior, and that he will always be a net detriment to the project. The project is better off without him, and, frankly, he is better off without it. It's time for him to explore other ways of constructively spending his time, because it sure ain't gonna happen here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a big problem with YRC, at the RFC we tried to find a way forward for him given. I disagreed with the solution (not the problem), precisely because you were bound to get a repeat offense sooner or later, and then here at AN/I there would be a polarized discussion. As I suggested, it would have been much better to assign a mentor to YRC who would be the sole arbiter of deciding if YRC is in violation of the restrictions and take appropriate measures.

What we also need to keep in mind here is that we can only deal with what goes on here on Wikipedia, we can't stop YRC from outing people on Wikipedia Review or somewhere else. Then going the extra mile to let YRC get along better with other editors here would be a better solution; if YRC feels less hostility toward other editors, there less of that hostility to take to other sites. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt there will be sympathy here for the notion that YRC should be shown leniency out of fear that he might carry his misbehaviour to other venues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring has already been tried, as has just about every conceivable other method to accommodate and calm down YRC. All have failed. We didn't jsut go the extra mile. We went far, far beyond that. We are not responsible for what attitudes YRC leaves WP with when he enters the world at large. We are not his therapists. He alone is responsible for that. I wish him luck, wherever he may go, and hope that he finds a way to control his behavior. But I most certainly do not want him here on WP anymore. He has wasted literally HUNDREDS of valuable editor and adminstrator time that could have been better spent. The loss he has caused to the project is mind-staggering. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Regardless of whether use of Prioryman's real name was outing or not, YRC's actions were both inflammatory and provocative. He had a choice whether or not to do what he did, had to have known it would stir up trouble. YRC should be held accountable for the choice he made, particularly given the promises made as part of his recent agreement. An editor with any real intention of improving their behavior would have run a mile before doing what YRC did, outing or no. Moreover, his use of a name for the sole purpose of antagonizing Prioryman was accompanied by incivility and, once Prioryman requested he refrain from use of the real name, violations of his 1RR agreement. How much WP:ROPE do we have to give one editor before we refrain from doing so any longer and ban an editor who behaves as YRC has? As others have said, enough is enough. We were there long ago, and it's long past time to ban this editor. --Drmargi (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this is a gaming of the system as a means to reach a end in a wiki dispute. It is defintely not outing and I see admin intimidation on his page regarding people who disagree. Disgusting.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#YRC_Proposal dated 15 August 2012, YRC agreed to a site ban if any of four conditions were violated.  One of these conditions was "six months strict civility enforcement".  YRC states, "I think a civility restriction in my case would be easy to police - I accept it and a rude post is a rude post - not difficult to see - this is not a punishment is it...".  As per witness from oversighter Jdforrester above, YRC has "acted with incivility".  Case closed; before beginning to consider the attempt to appear to be outing; the long history of blocks; and the issue of whether it is edit-warring to restore the appearance of outing, when it is on the user's talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Hell in a Bucket and others. I don't even follow these things that closely and I knew Prioryman's real name from having read old discussions and cases even before Jayen listed all the diffs. It was right there on the wiki for everyone to see. Allowing Prioryman to have the outing policy selectively enforced like he's doing here is just multiplying the drama. He hasn't complained when others have used his real name; his real name has not been oversighted out of those other discussions; he can't possibly have a good reason for caring about it in this case. Either ban everyone who's ever used it on-wiki or leave YRC alone. After the recent debacle involving Malleus and the request for clarification, I would think that editors involved in ban discussions would understand how crucially important it is not to be so blatantly arbitrary in enforcing rules by bans. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's not outing to refer to a user by that user's self-admitted real name, and one's userspace is exempt from 3RR restrictions. However, editwarring in your userspace so that the userspace page contains another's self-admitted real name for attack purposes is definitely not something that would be permitted by "strict civility enforcement": it's harassment. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:Anthonyhcole who should understand if the conditions have been broken. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - enough is enough. GiantSnowman 21:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Nyttend's succinct summary of the problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Those who have made it this far are entitled to be confused about what exactly has happened here. After YRC made a series of incivil posts and edit-warred with five other editors who had removed them, the posts in question were oversighted at my request. These facts have been confirmed by Jdforrester, one of the oversighters. YRC is under a civility and 1RR restriction following an RFC earlier this year. Failure to abide by the restrictions would lead to an automatic site ban. At the start of this thread I proposed that the site ban should be implemented in consequence of YRC violating the restrictions. He has previously been blocked 12 times for disruptive editing / edit-warring / 3RR violations and 6 times for civility violations. He was subsequently indefinitely blocked by Ironholds on the grounds of outing, rather than for violating his restrictions. It seems to me that there are two related questions here: (1) should YRC have been blocked for outing? and (2) should the site-ban for violations of his restrictions be implemented? I hope this helps to focus discussion a little more. Prioryman (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I guess I don't get the weekend off after all, as I could hear the angry mob forming. Half the support votes I'm seeing here appear to be based on a previous dislike of YRC and piling on. This likely needs to go to Arb and not decided here. Unfortunately, we don't have enough info (it was redacted and anyone linking to his real world name in other posts risks blocking) and the circumstances are such that this has turned into a lynching. Whether he needs to be banned or not needs to be discussed in a more calm and deliberate manner, rather than the slugfest that this has become. What we don't need to do is jump to conclusions about information that even admin do not have access to, and not make a decision in a few hours time. Hopefully, others will realize opposing here and allowing it to go to Arb is the better solution. If any of us is to have "justice", then all of us must. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This isn't necessarily "outing" in the strictest sense of the term, but it is problematic. After spending a couple of months away, immediately resuming this battleground behavior shows that this YRC should no longer be allowed to edit here. The restrictions were put into place to curtail YRC's battleground activities. That he has found new ways to continue to fight that don't necessarily fall directly under his restrictions doesn't mean he gets a free pass. Was he baited? Perhaps, but he was foolish enough to take the bait and even more foolish to continue to insert Prioryman's name despite being reverted by five different editors. This has got to stop, or we'll just be back here again. If people are upset about Prioryman, we can always open a discussion about him as well. AniMate 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose User:Youreallycan has made numerous contributions to biography related articles which are very valuable to the project. Moreover, he upholds WP:NPOV, trying to see and reconcile perspectives in disputes. Echoing User:Dennis Brown's comments, "Half the support votes I'm seeing here appear to be based on a previous dislike of YRC and piling on." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As I alluded to earlier, this is not the case for banning YRC. Bad facts make bad law. This smacks too much of a personal feud and provocation. I understand the frustration of some of the supporters, but I can't endorse it ending this way.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not enough information to support a ban, I can not tell if it is or is not outing as I can not see the edits. Would support the ban if ArbCom rule that it was either outing (how ever mild) or breach of his RfC conditions. Mtking ^(edits) 01:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't see the edits because you shouldn't be able to - that's the whole point of oversighting. If an editor commits an outing offence, the edits in question get oversighted so that other editors can't see them. The community necessarily has to take on trust the statements of those who can see the oversighted edits (i.e. the oversighters) and those who saw the edits before they got oversighted. The context of the oversighted edits was that YRC repeatedly and without provocation posted my full name on the user talk pages of Jimbo and YRC and in the latter case did so after I'd told him to stop doing so. Apart from me, three of those who can see/did see the edits have commented here:

  • Jdforrester: "As an "oversighter", I can confirm that Youreallycan (talk · contribs) has indeed posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility." [21]
  • Someguy1221: "I looked at the edits in question, and I agree that they were utterly inappropriate. YRC knew that and didn't care" [22]
  • Resolute: "I saw part of this in real time on Jimbo's talk page. YRC was edit warring to repeatedly insert an editor's real name against that editor's will. Personally, I don't really care whether or not said editor's name had already previously been revealed - and I don't know whether that is the case. It was a clearly antagonistic action that served no benefit to either the discussion or Wikipedia." [23]

  Bottom line, when it comes to blocks for outing, you have to trust those with first-hand knowledge of what happened - the nature of the evidence means that you can't check it yourself. And I note that everyone who did see what happened has said that they support a ban. Prioryman (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your last block was for... outing. So please shut up for a second before any backlash. Check yourself. Your hands are absolutely filthy here, dude. Doc talk 03:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm seeing this repeated by a few people but the block was made in error as there was no outing involved; it was overturned within 30 minutes. I had referred to another editor by his former username which the editor himself had used only 2 months previously. You can see the discussion for yourself at [24]. Dude. Prioryman (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You were blocked for OUTING. Wrong or right, you were at least charged with it. A complete mistake? Number of blocks for me for OUTING: 0. Sympathy for your cause: Evaporated. Lesson learned for you? Doubtful. Doc talk 03:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I saw what happened. (He addressed you by your real name and when challenged pointed out that you're well-known here by that so it's not inappropriate to do so) and I oppose this ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You've described the actions but not the context. Why did he address me by my full name when it was completely irrelevant to the discussion? Why did he continue doing so after I'd told him I didn't want him to do so? Why did he edit-war with five editors on two talk pages? As others have said above, YRC's actions were quite plainly intended to be antagonistic and incivil. Prioryman (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have saved me a great deal of reading and wasted time if he had not restored it when it was challenged. Why did he do that? Probably because it wasn't outing and he was defending his user talk page comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose since a mutual interaction ban should resolve the personal conflict and there is doubt as to whether outing really took place. Cla68 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full site ban. It doesn't matter who is wrong and who is right here. YRC has a long history of personal attacks and harassment which has not stopped. Recently, a user politely asked him to stop referring to his real name. Instead of replying with an apology and a promise to stop, he continued to use the real name, and even laughed in the face of the user while doing it. That the Wikipedia community continues to condone this kind of sociopathic behavior is more troubling than YRC's own actions. We should be spending our valuable time helping and training new users to research and write articles and share in the administration of this site. We should not be spending another single minute arguing over whether YRC deserves another chance. At some point, this psychic vampirism has to end. If that means putting a stake through it's proverbial heart, then that's what we need to do. Our new users will thank us for the time we spend on them instead. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose under these particular circumstances. An indefinite block is in place and will require its own remedy. The claim of OUTING is unsound to say the least. Doc talk 03:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Banning a user is an extreme measure and I believe that Youreallycan has not reached such levels of extreme and urgen call from community. Sorry but maybe a long block will do the trick, not banning. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No one has been outed. The reverts in question occurred at YRC's user talk page whereas the voluntary restriction did not explicitly apply to user pages. Duh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was asked to describe YRC edits, since I saw them before they were oversighted. Not only did he mention Prioryman's name, but his edits were extremely uncivil with extremely uncivil edit summaries. I don't remember exactly, but it was something like this: Prioryman, you are [NAME_REDACTED]. You should look in the mirror=LOL--В и к и T 07:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I also saw the edits and concur with that description. Outing was certainly YRC's intention, and it was also the effect (I had not known the surname previously; had it not been oversighted, other editors who hadn't known it also would have learned it). On top of that, there was an aggressive, taunting quality that amounts to a blatant violation of the civility restriction. That conclusion was reached at an early stage here by one of the oversighters (James F.), who also saw the edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Numerous examples have been produced that show Prioryman's name has been freely available on Wikipedia for years, so a block/ban based on outing would be extremely dubious. From the descriptions given about YRC's conduct, it sounds that a block of one month would be suitable to emphasize that whether or not posting a name is technically outing, once such posting has been reverted, it is extremely unwise to repeat it. My guess is that YRC thinks PM is taking advantage of the community in relation to Gibraltarpedia —something that YRC strongly opposes, and my main reason to oppose a ban is that Prioryman has obviously taken advantage of an opponent's weakness (poor control of temper). A permanent interaction ban is required, not the banning of an opponent. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per WP:Gangup, Johnuniq, Dennis, the Devil's A, Anthonyhcole, Wehwalt et al. Unfamiliar with Prioryman/ChrisO's history, it took me all of two minutes after reading this thread to verify the on-wiki acknowledgement of a RL identity and the associated off-wiki articles referring to these personas and their RL identity.[25] This stinks, YRC is a loudmouthed, vociferous defender of stuff xe believes in, gets up people's noses and battles all the way against (perceived) BLP violations, spin and other bullshit-munchers' spew. The unholy waft of excremental hypocrisy rising up from this so called outing of a certain ChrisO leaves me reeling for fresh air. What was that? 5 ArbCom sanctions and desysopped and editing from multiple accounts, invoking the right to vanish (apparently that's okay if you permanently fuck off which is not the case here), wow, this smacks of shutting up the little fucker niggling me removing the thorn from one's paw.[26] And you want to encourage new editors to come edit with all of this double-dealing money-incentived nudge nudge wink wink hypocrisy? Lord, give me a (wiki-) break! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I'm going to abstain from offering an opinion on an indefinite site ban for YRC, as they are capable of many great things but have also stirred up a tremendous volume of needless drama through their tendentious editing patterns. But with regards to the recently oversighted edit (which I presume refers to Prioryman by his first and last name), it's still not an acceptable thing to do. Even though Prioryman has essentially admitted his real-life identity back in 2006, it is clearly something which he does not feel comfortable having publicized elsewhere, especially given the fact that he'd presumably gone through the RTV process for the sake of distancing himself from his actual name. It may not be a clear cut violation of WP:OUTING, but it's still inappropriate. Kurtis (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on information availability and editor self-confirmation destroying the outing claim. If the complaint about outing were for outing someone who did not self-out, I will change my stance (that is, if an oversighter were to announce that the editor outed wasn't as assumed here by essentially everyone) --Nouniquenames 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per not bureaucracy. Per a gut feeling. I think YRC / Rob has (not for the first time) acted like a doofus in getting into a stupid revert war. If I was applying some strick logical test I have to admit I'd say support. I've observed repeated battleground mentality with Prioryman (e.g. Prioryman / Delicious Carbuncle). And the fact that he was on YRC's talk page before retraction -- thereby drawing attention to the revelation of his name. As outlined below by Devil's Advocate, I said thought the YRC RFCU was a ticket punch for an ArbCom case -- was by many how wrong I was -- and Prioryman filed a week later. I want this discussion to be hung as no consensus and I'd like ArbCom -- who has access to all the stuff us mere mortals don't -- take a good hard look at the actions of everyone involved. It very well may the case that YRC just doesn't have the temperament to do the Wikipedia thing and we'll have to (regretfully) ask him to move on. But not this way. Nobody Ent 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose And unblock straight away if YRC agrees to below mutual interaction ban. Reasons: 1. Very far from outing, I can only imagine ignorance of Prioryman's history is to blame for this. 2. 1rr is not realistically meant to be applied to a restricted user's talkpage - given the ample discretion users have over their talk pages its far too easily gamed - both ways. Wikilawyer posts something, user reverts, wikilawyer reposts, user 'archives' etc. No one can with a straight face say that a 1rr should apply under those circumstances, and if it is, it should be explicit. And as above, one of the people instrumental in hammering out that agreement with YRC says that was certainly not the intent. Its far too easily gameable if someone wants to get someone under a 1rr blocked. Not that I would dream of suggesting someone with a past history of misusing wikipedia's policies would do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose site ban Too many caveats. They Outed an editor by calling the editor by a name the editor had used before. They violated 1RR on their own talk page. This is enough for a block, but not a ban. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose site ban - Classic kangaroo court stuff here. A person with a history of a grudge/dispute opens this thread. Another person, also with a history chimes in. Then another editor starts a thread of support for site ban and then folks line up on both sides with support vs oppose? Is there anyway an uninvolved group could sort this mess out or has that been tried? Site ban seems pretty harsh and drastic. --Malerooster (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose site ban - for Pete's sake, this has pretty much been open knowledge both on and off Wikipedia. Now it's even in the press. But if folks really want a site ban, they should also look very closely at Prioryman's role within the Wikimedia movement and whether he's a net positive or a net negative, given the global disgrace of the Gibraltarpedia debacle. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose site ban per Only in death and most of the dozen or so immediately above. A strict interaction ban to keep these two away from each other's throats is what is needed. JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and unblock. No outing took place as Prioryman's full name has been referenced unredacted and confirmed by Prioryman himself on Wikipedia for quite some time prior to this accusation. In the absence of outing, 1RR doesn't apply to userpages and thus was not violated - YRC is free to edit his userpage and usertalk page as many times as he likes. As a silent observer to a number of recent conflicts on Wikipedia involving Prioryman in some way, it is clear that his intention is to game the system and use any means available to him to remove his adversaries, and particularly YRC, from the project. While YRC has a definite track record of incivility, his motivation is typically for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Prioryman's conduct appears to be far more insidious and manipulative and with seemingly far more personal objectives in mind. Given a choice between the two of them, I'd be much more comfortable with YRC's kind of disruptive behaviour than Prioryman's. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 00:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

At a 38-34 rough count, there seems to be 'no consensus' for site ban. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the outing claim has been pretty much demolished – a fact that even the blocking admin has conceded above – why is Youreallycan still indef blocked? AndreasKolbe JN466 01:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Youreallycan copied from his talk page at his request by JohnCD (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC):[reply]

Support for that - I am not currently even (requesting unblocking clearly there are divisive issues and fractions here - close as no consensus - banning is completely unnecessary and undue at this time - - Youreallycan 00:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the hatting

[Darkness Shines], You are involved in both the above and below discussion and should not be the one to hat anything. Furthermore, the above discussion should not be hatted, but the consensus determined by an uninvolved admin. And the consensus should be posted in the above discussion. Only if the above consensus turns out to be not a site ban should the below discussion be considered. Silverseren^C 03:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know who's done it last time, but I've unarchived an unsigned and clearly premature closure. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN and AN/I recent interaction history

[27] the "Fae Homophobia case" - containing almost all of the dramatis personae (including Prioryman) with the same goal to ban YRC.

[28] same aim, same people.

[29] same cast, same aim.

And of course in the same long-running series Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan which was on the same subject once again - and the problem absolutely appears to involve Prioryman, alas.

As to citing "lotsa blocks" one ought to look at them -- vide [30]. Not all blocks were "good" to be sure, and using "number of blocks" as a reason for a site ban is contrary to logic.

In short, repeated attempts by the same editors to achieve the same result which they failed at so many times it is now risible. AN/I should not be allowed to become a perpetual battleground where people seek to ban someone primarily on the grounds that they do not like him, and propose banning the person on a monthly basis - and it is unfortunately clear that such is the case at hand. Collect (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine analysis, this stinks to high heaven. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we go by the number of civility-related blocks, Malleus would have been banned too. Clearly that is a metric lacking community consensus. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so. Although Malleus probably should be indef-blocked for the good of Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be consensus for a ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose interaction ban

Between PM and YRC. Enough is enough, PM has been going at it for far to long. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment People have been arguing over the fine points of whether there's a true outing if the info was already known. WP:OUTING says "[o]uting should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true... attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." (emphasis added). That attempted outing is grounds for a block says that the conduct is sanctionable even if there's not an actual disclosure. I'm not inclined to cut YRC any slack in this situation. 76Strat suggested handling this with blocks against both YRC and Prioryman, without banning YRC. If other people think Prioryman also deserves a sanction, that's a reasonable thing to bring up for discussion (PM's activity has been far from ideal). But I think we're way past the point where we want to repeat this cycle with YRC. We have tried everything with YRC and we should be convinced by now that his drama will never stop unless we make it stop. We have to part ways with him. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if YRC is unblocked. I've had more than enough of YRC's nonsense. If an interaction ban stops gratuitous, unprovoked personal attacks against me of the kind which we've seen tonight, I'm all for it. Prioryman (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - In both directions - with a lengthy block for any violation. And, yes, YRC should be unblocked, or at worst have it reduced to time-served on the grounds of incivility. It's not outing. But it's not the right way to behave, either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bugs, per YRC's self-proposed restriction, incivility from him for 6 months after his 1 month wikibreak expired is supposed to result in a site ban.[31] His comment at that time was "I think a civility restriction in my case would be easy to police - I accept it and a rude post is a rude post" -- I guess it's not so easy after all. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PM was blocked not two weeks ago for outing, he cannot come here demanding another editor be banned when he got off, plus the obvious bad history between these two users. Unblock YRC, impose an IBAN, job done and this drama can be dropped. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was another User, who brought this to AN/I. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there's Darkness Shines' comment falling completely flat. Silverseren^C 02:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe YOU should now be blocked for incivility. Those who can see the alleged outing have had it proven to them that there was no outing, hence the edit-warring by the other editors was unjustified. Civility is a matter of opinion. A bidirectional interaction ban is the fair solution. There are 2 things I know about YRC: (1) He can be difficult - I'm sure I've had a run-in or two with him at some point in the past; and (2) he has been a relentless defender of articles about living persons. Guess which one of those 2 topics is more likely for wikipedia's legal team to care about. That's not to say he's indespensible. No one here is. But if there's a wall put between the two editors, maybe they can both be useful without getting in each others' way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously arguing that YRC's posts were not incivil? Did you read them before they got oversighted? You don't have to believe me. Jdforester said above: "that in so doing [YRC] reverted more than once and acted with incivility." I assume you trust James on this. Prioryman (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it. But James got the outing wrong, and hence the alleged 1RR violation wrong, so while I would not question his good faith, why should I trust his judgment on the alleged incivility? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've misread James: "[YRC] posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility." (See also, WP:USERBIO and WP:NPA).Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to comment on whether anything was suppressed besides the alleged full name of the user Priory which has since been revealed multiple times via the links in this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) That outing (by PM) was inadvertent and he didn't edit war over it, so you're making a false equivalence. PM also doesn't have anything like YRC's history (maybe he's working on it, sigh). I suppose it's not that big a deal by now if we unblock YRC (I still think we shouldn't), since based on his overall activity since returning it's a pretty sure bet that he'll be back here soon about something regardless. The only thing I want to know is how many more times are we going to accept repeating this. I now fear that the answer is "infinity". 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the interaction ban is enforced and adhered to, the bad-blood should stop. Any violation should result in blocks of accelerating length. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your premise is that YRC is able to stay out of conflict with people other than Prioryman. That sunny picture makes me smile. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing that says only one interaction ban can be applied. Interaction bans do work, IF they are properly applied and adhered to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, a discussion on ANI determined that referring to a user's former username is not, in fact, outing. Prioryman (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This was outing by YRC with hostile intent, and edit warring on one of the highest-profile pages on Wikipedia. It flies in the face of the intent of YRC's latest "deal" that was cut when numerous editors were calling for a lengthy block or site ban. All YRC has to do is edit decently and avoid trouble, like most of the rest of us. But now this, YRC's 20th block. Who creates this drama? YRC, and his little band of supporters who enable this bad movie. The choice is clear: ban now, or ban later after yet another time-sucking episode. Jusdafax 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You may be underestimating Wikipedia's appetite for the third choice: repeat time-sucking episodes every week or so until hell freezes over. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 2-way interaction ban if YRC is not site banned. But I still support the site ban. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as it would be best for both editors-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.- 2-way Interaction ban if YRC is not site banned. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the reasons above. Also, the remedies are not exclusive, so still support site ban for violation of editing restrictions/breach of trust. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support would be in the best interests of both parties --Guerillero | My Talk 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support or better yet throw them to the wolves Arbcom. There was no outing just shit stirring by Prioryman. YRC is also someone who likes to be the centre of attention. They want dramah? Then give it them at a place likely to result in both being banned.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interaction ban if he's unblocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolute pathetic and transparent attempt to subvert the consensus of the above site ban vote by making it seem that consensus exists for a more lenient outcome. Bad faith proposal as evidenced by the proposers repeated hatting of the above discussion [[32]], [[33]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering a number of the above voters are saying only this option if the consensus in the site ban discussion is not for a site ban, it should be okay. Maybe we should have the people in this discussion who stated "if he's unblocked" have that be bolded too? It's an important clarification. Silverseren^C 03:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The outing charge is dubious but besides the point. Has Chris ever used his last name on wiki? Who knows? — probably not even him... But here's the thing: Rob got on the train for 1RR and strict civility enforcement, or else a site ban. That seems pretty straightforward. He has demonstrably edit warred — AGAIN. It is unfortunate that he didn't last long enough to bring charges against the now-gravedancing Prioryman for having earlier falsely brought charges attempting to have YRC indeffed for the trolling posts of a Joe Job on Wikipediocracy. Check the ANI logs for that disgusting spectacle. That's show biz... Carrite (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While I think the claims of outing are dubious at best, YRC was being pushy about it without good reason. On the other hand, Prioryman has done a great deal to provoke YRC, and is clearly trying to settle some sort of grudge. Under those circumstances both need to stay away from each other and I would suggest this sort of sanction serves as a perfectly reasonable basis for unblocking YRC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me one "perfectly reasonable" reason for unblocking someone who has been blocked for the twentieth time now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I previously provided a detailed analysis showing why that block log was a worthless gauge of present conduct.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was combative and uncivil nineteen (actually, more) times before, and he's being combative and uncivil now. Seems like the former blocks are a very good gauge of present conduct. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, since I am supporting the full ban on YRC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What makes any of you think this is actually "on the table"? Did YRC violate his self-suggested restrictions or not? I could give a crap either way: but vacate those restrictions before we start talking about whether there was actual outing or not, splitting hairs. He broke the 1RR restriction that he said he wouldn't, and he told the community what should happen if he did. There's no vote necessary. Is this really that difficult? Should we amend his own terms after the fact? Yeesh... Doc talk 06:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: since a site ban for YRC is the right outcome here, he will not be interacting with anyone. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as YRC is going to be/should be banned anyway. Davewild (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Youreallycan should be banned for violating his own conditions from RFC/U. --В и к и T 09:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only if the site ban somehow doesn't occur (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. AndreasKolbe JN466 12:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Interaction ban to be imposed in parallel to YRC's unblock. --AndreasKolbe JN466 01:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. This YRC violated his own terms. R. Baley (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interaction bans are like a parent telling their kids to stop bickering. Parents enforce this by turning the car around, Wikipedia enforces this with blocks. If two users cannot get interact cordially with each other, they need voluntarily not interact. The only reason for the rest of the community to get involved is when the bickering gets so bad that blocks are needed. I think blocks to both parties were/are needed here, but an interaction ban is pointless. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Action should not be punitive. Just enough to get the job done. An interaction ban prevents further bickering. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The claims of outing (in any straight forward and reasonable sense) have been shown to be not true. This is the most logical step forward to prevent future issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, interaction bans are always a bad idea. Two editors can voluntarily decide not to interact with each other if they don't get along, but to impose an inteaction ban which then has to be policed is just stupid. Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This is an effort to avoid the real issue. Puts a very small bandaid on a very big wound. --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose  Prioryman had every right to get oversighted removals in this case, and obviously the oversighters agreed.  Prioryman has done a reasonable job of preparing the issue for community discussion from the viewpoint of the community.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Prioryman above (@ 01:48) and YRC here. Independently of whatever other sanctions might be needed. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already filed. :) --Rschen7754 22:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a 2-way WP:IBAN. Both editors wish it, and the world will be better off for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support' mutual interaction ban between YRC and Prioryman because YRC has said on his talk page that he approves of this remedy. Based on the comments above, the two-way interaction ban should probably also include Nomoskedasticy. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh. As the closer of the user RFC on YRC it saddens me to see this. The reason user RFCs fail so often is that the subject either refuses to agree to any terms or ignores the entire process. In this case YRC not only participated but agreed to some rather severe sanctions, with the clear understanding that he would be banned if he breached them. I am very sorry to have to say that it appears he did indeed breach those terms and I think WP, and YRC, might benefit from some time apart from one another. Note that this is based on him violating the terms he agreed to and not the "outing" issue. This probably could have been avoided by YRC and Prioryman additionally agreeing to an interaction ban as they clearly despise each other. It seems a bit late for that now but if YRC is not site banned I would fully support a binding, permanent interaction ban, construed as broadly as possible. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think you mean indefinite not permanent. There is always the possibility, however unlikely it may seem, that Prioryman and Youreallycan will have crises of conscience that could cause them to reconcile and become the best of friends. You must always believe in the potential for real human kindness to win the day, though never try to get your hopes up too high about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't presume to tell me what I mean. Some people just can't get along and are better off avoiding each other. These two obviously both lack the self control to do it themselves, the chances that they will both grow up and realize they are their own worst enemies is so slim as to be virtually non-existent, so they should just stay the hell away from one another permanently. However I retract my support for an immediate site ban on YRC in favor of kicking this up to arbcom. I don't believe ANI is effective at resolving complicated personality conflicts like this one and as there is a suppression action at the center of the current furor ArbCom and WP:AUSC are better equipped to deal with it. It is important to note that although YRC agreed to the restrictions Priorymans repeated characterization of them as "community imposed sanctions" is hogwash. User RFCs by definition cannot impose binding restrictions, they are geared towards voluntary agreements. YRC may have gone back on his word but that is not the only issue at play here and a thorough examination such as the one I would expect from ArbCom is more in the greater community's interest than just kicking out one user who, whatever errors they may have made, is not the whole problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support PM and YRC will never be able to calmly discuss anything. The Fae and Gibraltarpedia cases involve great bitterness on both sides, and neither can be resolved within this community. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong support — Nothing good will come of allowing their feud to continue. And I agree with it going both ways, as I feel Prioryman's culpability in this scenario is no less than YRC's. And yes, I would support having this measure in conjunction with a full site ban, presuming one passes (which I'm going to abstain from commenting on; YRC is capable of many great things, but also a tremendous volume of needless drama). Kurtis (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per comment in above section. With YRC's agreement. (Left alone YRC has shown he can follow fair restrictions) Otherwise this should probably go to the Arb-case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Darkness Shines ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full two-way interaction ban. This disruptive feud should be stopped. YRC has behaved badly but it seems clear that PM is out to get him. Ban to include addressing, discussing or mentioning each other, and particularly bringing complaints about each other to AN/I. JohnCD (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang action needed on Prioryman

It has now been clearly established above that Prioryman's surname has been present in numerous places on Wikipedia and that his real name has been known here for over six years and that he has seen and responded to mentions of his name in ways that show he was aware of them and that he did not immediately get them revdeled. He has used the bogus outing as a way to get his enemy YRC blocked and , he hopes, banned. Prioryman's behaviour therefore needs to be addressed in its own right.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though it may be considered forum shopping, a request to start an ArbCom case is open here and as you earlier stated, this venue would likely have the full round of sanctions. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if Arbcom is going to bounce that back to the community. We need to show them what a big tangle we can ge into here and then bounce things back.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea. If it happens, it happens, but it's good to make a honest attempt to resolve the issues first. --Rschen7754 04:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no inclination to choreograph a filibuster and I'm AGFing that Peter cohen wasn't suggesting any such. I understood it more as ridicule of a process that refuses to act until the community emerges fully incapable, forcing a full measure of folly when the half measure has shown the divide. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His behaviour is really problematic currently. He is aggressive, especially over the Gibraltar stuff constantly battling anybody who offers a hint of criticism, driving people into submission.Secretlondon (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prioryman? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meretricious outing claim deserves a short block, with a clear message that any further pork pies told with the apparent intent to get another editor blocked or banned will be greeted by a considerably longer one. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my belief that YRC's actions were at the very least against the spirit of WP:OUTING - misusing personal information to intentionally cause aggravation and distress. He falsely claimed that I had edited under my real name on Wikipedia, which I never did, and acted in a gratuitously incivil and insulting fashion towards me and other editors. I requested oversighting in the good faith belief that WP:OUTING had been violated, and I did not ask for YRC to be blocked for outing. I note that when I was myself accused, wrongly, of outing Volunteer Marek by using his former username, VM asked in good faith to have the edits in question oversighted under WP:OUTING and was not penalised when the community determined that no outing had occurred.[34] I've said that I am willing to withdraw my request for a site ban for the sake of resolving this amicably, and have already agreed to a mutual interaction ban. Prioryman (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A purely hypothetical question

If a user complains on ANI about a perceived outing, should their complaint be given less weight because they have very recently committed the very same offense? To illustrate, let's say hypothetical user Bolunteer Barek's changed their username because it related to their real life name. Brutal Shoe (another hypothetical user) has previously been warned about using Bolunteer Barek's former username and agreed not to do so. When Brutal Shoe repeated the offence, they were blocked but quickly unblocked when they falsely claimed that they were unaware of Bolunteer Barek's feelings about the former username. With that history, if Brutal Shoe complains that Bou Beally Ban (another hypothetical user) has outed them by referring to their real name, should we take into account Brutal Shoe's own recent behaviour in this regard? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the realm of hypothetical exploration, see Two wrongs make a right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No less weight should be given. To use an overblown comparison which should nonetheless make my view clear: If I am a murderer and I report a murder, the second murder should be handled as an independent crime. The second murderer does not get off lightly because the person who brought the second murder to the attention of the authorities has previously committed crimes. Same logic applies for lesser misdeeds. The difference in seriousness and scope does not render the logic less meaningful. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be more of a case of one person calling for the death penalty while getting away with murder themselves... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you interaction banned from Prioryman? If so, starting threads complaining about him is probably a violation of said ban, and you really ought to let someone else pursue this. But, anyway, an RFC/U would be the next step for anyone who's concerned about Prioryman's actions. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My question is purely hypothetical. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked DC for two weeks for this transparent attempt to skirt the limits of the interaction ban. T. Canens (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Pure gaming of the ban. R. Baley (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the DC's last comment, especially, TCanens is correct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great call on the block, T. Canens. YRC's behavior at Jimbo's page yesterday seems to me to be even more designed to skirt limits, and given how many times we have had to debate correctional measures with the same crew of his supporters, of which DC has been an example, I hope DC's block will serve notice that the community has taken all it will tolerate. Jusdafax 14:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fully supportive of this. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone to make a list, or a table, that has the different sides listed. I'm always confusing DC with DS (are they on the same side?), I didn't know that Prioryman was ChrisO, I noticed only a few days ago that Jayen is Andreas Kolbe. Maybe Cirt is in here as well, with a new user name. I guess everyone knows that YRC was Off2rioRob, or however that was capitalized. And what all were they fighting over? Scientology, Gibraltar, Tom Cruise--what else? Yes, we need a table, with room to check them off once they're indeffed, and with colored lines to indicate who is on an interaction ban with whom etc. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some kind of scoring system? Silver smiley face for blocking one, gold smiley face when you ban one, and if you block or ban five you get to be class monitor for a day? Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll call it "WTF BINGO!" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be exclusionary and present a high barrier towards understanding it; Wikipedians can't properly get a concept unless it has at least 3 TLAs. So, I'd advocate calling it OMGWTFBBQBINGO, or preferrable WP:OMGWTFBBQBINGO - we should try to organise this on the DL, though, because if the CO finds out we'll be on KP. Ironholds (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of presenter, obvious point is still obvious. Ban them both or unblock them both (so they can feud all over the place and what not). If they do the same things (and they seem to), then treat them the same. --Nouniquenames 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point though, interaction ban or not, is valid. Prioryman was recently indef blocked because of the very thing he is accusing YRC of doing. It was actually a bit worse in his case because he also linked to off-wiki sites to "support" that outing. When I complained he escalated the offense in a manner similar to YRC by redoing it again on their talk page. Once he was blocked he played the 'I wasn't aware that this was a problem card' and got unbocked.

The thing is, I had completely forgotten (I honestly don't keep track of these grudge things) that he (Prioryman) had ALREADY done this before, and I had to ask him before (back in March) not to do it [35]. So I don't know about YRS or DC here, but there's a tremendous amount of bad faith on the part of Pioryman here. As Peter Cohen points out above, a hefty boomerang is also in order. Volunteer Marek  16:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Marek makes an excellent point. I unblocked Prioryman when he was accused of outing VM, and this situation looks very, very similar to me. It is not as cut and dry as some are making it. This is why I suggest closing the ANI to allow ArbCom to review the case in a slower, more deliberate way. This allows them to review the actions of all parties, view the actual diffs that have oversighted, and come up with a more equitable solution. I have no idea (or opinion) what the final conclusion should be, but the process should be shifted to ArbCom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prioryman actually promised VM he would not call him by his name again at the time. Yet a few months later, he said "I honestly didn't realise that Volunteer Marek didn't want me to refer to him by his old account name on Wikipedia". I believe he lied to you, just as he lied to arbcom about his intention to vanish two years ago. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of recent Prioryman-Youreallycan dispute

Just so we all get caught up to speed on what is going on here I think it is important to know the recent history between these two editors. During the ArbCom case regarding User:Fæ Prioryman was a prolific contributor to the discussion in Fæ's defense, making 206 total edits to the related case pages (see here: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]). During a discussion of the results of the case on Jimbo's talk page where Prioryman was continuing his defense of Fæ, Youreallycan asked him to declare a conflict of interest with regards to Fæ due to financial ties with Wikimedia UK. Prioryman denied any conflict of interest and further responded with "why haven't you been indeffed yet for your perennial obnoxiousness?" About a half hour later he began building an RfC/U against YRC.

During that RfC/U Nobody Ent provided a statement that Prioryman's opening comment in the RfC/U about eventually going to arbitration suggested the RfC/U was not being filed in good faith, but as an attempt to "ticket-punch" on his way to an ArbCom case against YRC. It was further alleged by Collect and by Jayen (Andreas Kolbe) that Prioryman was attempting to game WP:CANVASS by nearly exclusively mentioning the side of the dispute against YRC and making notifications regarding those mentions, without mentioning nearly any of the disputants on YRC's side i.e. notifying admins who blocked YRC and not those who unblocked him. A week into the RfC/U, and while it was still ongoing, Prioryman filed an arbitration request regarding YRC. While that request and the RfC/U were outstanding, Prioryman made a proposal for a cocktail of restrictions. YRC's "self-proposed" restrictions provided above just had minor alterations to the duration of said restrictions. Under the threat of being railroaded by ArbCom, YRC was essentially forced to make that move.

What we come up to now is the comment made by YRC in this discussion on Jimbo's page that prompted this incident. The mention of Prioryman's last name; something that is well-known, noted repeatedly in many places on-wiki (some discussions are littered with mentions of his last name from both supporters and opponents), and can be discovered in the most simplistic of Google searches; is the only thing that could even remotely be described as uncivil in said comment as it was essentially just supportive comments about Jayen/Kolbe in response to Prioryman's serious accusations against Jayen. Prioryman pursued YRC on this frivolous point and is now trying to get him site-banned on top of an indefinite block claiming this as a violation of those "self-imposed" restrictions. In short, YRC was a cornered tiger and Prioryman is calling for YRC to be put down because he got scratched.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, but ... What did YRC mean when he said "@Prioryman you edited under your real name"? Now, some of the edits on Jimbo's talk page have been suppressed, so I can't see everything, but YRC actually mentioned Prioryman's real name, which was removed (but not suppressed - probably an oversight, heh), but putting aside another possible example of YRC's outing Prioryman, I don't get what YRC is referring to.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Chris" is Prioryman's first name and "O" is the first initial of his last name so he did edit under his real name. Essentially, Prioryman is complaining that YRC said what the "O" stands for in "ChrisO", his previous account on Wikipedia that he freely acknowledges was his previous account. However, as noted above, his last name has been confirmed many times on-wiki by many people, including Prioryman himself, and it is incredibly easy for anyone to find out as he has made many public statements off-wiki under the moniker "ChrisO" regarding a subject on which he has edited heavily where his last name is noted right alongside that shortened version.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For those who do not wish to read the ever so long first section a couple of articles to put the complainant's good nature into perspective. Gibraltarpedia, Keeping track. Yes I have read Wikipedia:Sarcasm and this is such commentary, cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As there have been mentions of Gibraltarpedia, editors may want to note that there is currently a related RfC, at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Gibraltar_hooks_RfC. AndreasKolbe JN466 20:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the situation with Prioryman is being broadcast on Wikipediocracy, whose regulars dutifully show up at these discussions - including, I believe, the people making "neutral" summaries of what one another are doing. If you want to talk about "canvassing", that I believe would be your first proper stop. But the policy is apparently dead in the water, utterly without relevance at least where they are concerned. Wnt (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has YRC flouted his BLP editing restriction?

The restriction:

• Three month BLP topic ban - note, conditions as per FormerIP's comments below - diff

The diff is important; it defines the nature of the narrowly-construed restriction:

1. For mainspace: no content that falls under BLP policy to be added or removed in any article. I would exclude non-controversial attributions (e.g. "according to Professor Plum").
2. For talkspace: do not start or involve yourself in discussions about the application of BLP policy, and abide by BLP policy as it relates to talkpages. Other than that, feel free to mention living people. (My bolding)

Above, Prioryman says, "In the last few days [YRC] has edited Talk:Silvio Berlusconi and Talk:Florence Devouard." But on Berlusconi, YRC was discussing category policy,[41] and on Devourd he simply did a bit of housekeeping: reformatted a long comment in French, added the {{unsigned}} template, translated it into English, and archived it.[42] All clearly within his agreed restrictions. Prioryman knows this.

Above, Nomoskedasitcity refers to YRC's violation of an agreement to refrain from participating in BLP discussions by posting at BLPN. No such agreement exists. At BLPN YRC has tidied the page [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] commented on the notability of an article, [55] recommended article deletion, [56][57] discussed vandalism [58] discussed COI [59] discussed WP:NOTAFORUM, [60] and questioned the accuracy of a categorisation; [61][62] – all of which is allowed by his RfC undertaking.

One edit concerns me. In this edit an IP added "He was a drug dealer" to a university chancellor's biography. An hour later, an IP reported it to BLPN, and YRC immediately reverted it. According to 1. above, he should not have reverted that edit. According to 2. above, he should not have engaged in discussion about it. But he reverted it immediatelyand mentioned what he'd done on BLPN.

Are we really going to ban an editor for that? Don't do it again, YRC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm persuaded by the above that he didn't substantially breach the BLP restriction other than possibly with the Atleo edit. But I proposed this ban on the basis of incivility and edit-warring, which are at the heart of his long-running conduct problems (18 blocks for violations in those areas to date, not including the latest one), not BLP restriction violations. Prioryman (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring in that instance occurred in user space, and the problematical edit warring we were addressing with his restrictions was occurring in article space. I'm not convinced there's a problem with edit warring in user space. Were there unjustified instances of that before his last block? Most people revert you when you delete their user talk page comments. People often take umbrage when you do that. (I've done a bit.) YRC's revert-warring is a common response to that situation.

May I say that I think it was rude of YRC to address you by your real surname, though, and I'm thinking now that it's been rude of me to address you by your first name. I apologise for that. Do I need the community's permission to redact those? I don't think anyone's commented on them yet.

I'd like to work on a project where that level of rudeness is not tolerated. We tolerate rudeness here in a way that no civilised community does. This society at en.Wikipedia is being undermined by boorish behaviour. And don't get me started on the quality of debate here. We have a couple of huge developmental steps to take yet: social sensitivity - concern for the feelings of our fellows, our subjects and our readers, and reason - as embodied in respect for and exercise of the highest quality rhetoric.

But I digress. I can't support us banishing YRC for this relatively common level of boorish behaviour. If there is seriously a culture change occurring here, if the (presumed) majority here who can't abide rude, insulting behaviour is actually going to really start insisting on respectful treatment of others, then fine. See you later, YRC. Is that culture shift occurring? Will the next person subjected to unambiguous rudeness be able to appeal to the community to correct the bully's behaviour? I don't know the answer to that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you insist that the 1RR restriction doesn't apply. Show me where that was mentioned in the RFC. And why are you defending someone who has been blocked not one, not two, not three but 20 times. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that TDA did an analysis on the blocks during the RFC/ArbCom case and showed pretty conclusively that the majority of those 20 blocks were spurious and unwarranted. I made my comment on this bullshit at ArbCom go read it. This is more of the same. Now either YOU are being mislead or you're one of those on the bank of the ditch. Which is it? John lilburne (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the 1RR was always that it was a universal one. When I proposed what eventually became the final set of restrictions there was no suggestion from anyone that it should only apply to one particular content space. It would have been pointless if it had. It wasn't about giving him permission to edit war in certain places. The point of the restriction was to completely stop YRC from engaging in any edit-warring anywhere. Prioryman (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the restriction was not to allow you, or anyone else, to edit his user talk comments. Is that what you think, that you can just go to his talk page and alter his comments without his permission and edit war to keep your version in, and cry "ban him! ban him!" to the community? That's not the way I see it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be how Prioryman saw it. Let's note that Prioryman made a meretricious claim of outing against another editor, and almost succeeded in having them banned for life on the strength of it. Even now the honest editor is blocked, and he is not: even though his behaviour seems considerably more calculating and insidious. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I read an accusation somewhere that Prioryman was aware VM didn't want to be linked to his previous user name when he did just that? Was that accusation substantiated? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. told not to do it again, promised not to do it again, claimed "I honestly didn't realise that Volunteer Marek didn't want me to refer to him by his old account name on Wikipedia". AndreasKolbe JN466 02:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know better than that. If someone is edit warring on their own talk page it is because someone, who has no right there is there prodding and provoking. John lilburne (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case request

Was filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? The community is allowed to decide something separate from Arbcom. In fact, the community is allowed to override Arbcom, if need be. So the existence of the fact that a case was started is meaningless if a site ban is decided in this discussion. Silverseren^C 20:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it was a courtesy notice. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I had thought you were the one who started the Arbcom case when I made that comment. Silverseren^C 21:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it looks like they're going to decline for the exact fact that the community is dealing with it right now. Really, Rschen7754 (if you read this), you should have waited until after the discussion above was completed. Doing it in the middle of the ongoing discussion is just going to make things worse. Silverseren^C 20:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is an arbcom case, Would it be appropriate to unblock on the proviso that he can only edit his talk page and the Arbcom case? If not, he has posted a comment on his talk page with the request that it be added to the arbcom case. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted that statement to the Arbcom page. Just to clarify -- it's not a case (yet), it's a request for a case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh, right. thanks, I had missed a step. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be appropriate to unblock if the case was accepted. I presume it would have to come with the proviso that he would only be allowed to edit the case page - is that the usual way it's done? Prioryman (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as AC Clerk, there are 2 possibilities: (1) He's unblocked pursuant to only editing his userspace and the case pages, or (2) he remains blocked but can edit his own talk page and have comments (and such) cross-posted. Generally (1) is the way to go, but I have seen a few cases where (2) ended up happening. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's more prudent to stick with (2) for now. YRC appears to have trouble controlling his temper in tense situations sometimes. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That generally will fall to the ArbCom to decide, however. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I stand behind my decision, as privacy issues are involved, and as the discussion was spiraling out of control last night. --Rschen7754 21:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. ANI is ill-equipped to handle complicated disputes with a long history, which is what we have here despite some users attempting to focus solely on a few edits. ArbCom is generally better at resolving such things in a more comprehensive manner, by which I mean not just kicking out one user who is only part of a larger problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. There's no consensus here. The next admin who comes along and agrees with this assessment should close the thread. It's become just another battleground for the factions to argue. While a few uninvolved voices are here, they are mostly drowned out. Jehochman ^Talk 17:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated elsewhere, I agree that there is no consensus and this should be handled by the existing ArbCom case request, so all the evidence can be reviewed. I'm involved, but would hope an uninvolved party can close as such, soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears to me that there may be consensus on the mutual interaction ban. I would suggest an admin impose the mutual interaction ban and unblock YRC once both YRC and Prioryman agree to it. I think the closing admin should also make a decision on whether one or two other editors also tried to railroad YRC. It appears to me that Nomoskedascity may be culpable in that. The easy solution is just to include him/her in the mutual interaction ban with YRC. Then, an ArbCom case wouldn't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully accept an interaction/desire an interaction ban from these two users User:Prioryman and User:Nomoskedasticity, I have been requesting such for quite some time - over a year/perhaps two years when I check the diffs in the case of User:Nomoskedasticity - Youreallycan 23:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC) (User talk:Youreallycan. Mephistophelian (contact) 23:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

It is clear from the above that Nomoskedasticity and Prioryman falsely accused YRC of breaching his BLP editing restriction and of outing. YRC did restore his comments on user talk when they had been deleted on spurious grounds - just as Prioryman had a week earlier.[63] And so he should. His editing restrictions were not open season on his user talk. The final accusation, that he was uncivil: well, was it uncivil to address Prioryman by his real name? If it was, was it the kind of incivility that would attract a sanction, given that Prioryman had earlier pointed to his real name, and when Tony Sidaway addressed Prioryman using his real name, it didn't even squeeze a peep out of Prioryman?

This case is clear. There was no outing. There was no breach of BLP editing restrictions. If there was incivility it was very mild and never the kind of thing we sanction. And the "edit warring" was YRC defending his user talk record against unjustified removal by others, something most of us would do under the circumstances, and something Prioryman did a week earlier.

Prioryman and Nomoskedasticity have wasted a great deal of others' valuable time here bringing unfounded serious charges - with very serious penalties attached - to this board, and compounding it with untruths. And they will continue. This thread should be closed now, with a widely-construed interaction ban between YRC and Nomo, and YRC and Prioryman – something Prioryman and YRC have already agreed to. If Nomo would sign up to that, I think we could all go back to work. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Added 04:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been watching this discussion very closely. Some editors with clue have suggested that no consensus has emerged. I'll assume that's a correct assessment and fashion my regards to that assumption. So yes, the discussion should close as no-consensus and Arbcom can accept the case and fashion a remedy. Also I think YRC should post a thoughtful request to be unblocked and I hope it would be fairly evaluated. I'd be interested to know Ironholds thoughts regarding such a prospect. Nevertheless, protect the wiki above all else, and feel free to disregard me altogether. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds, the blocking admin, has now unblocked YRC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that and find it significantly therapeutic. I had just finished posting a comment to a user telling him that I was wrong about thoughts I held about them. I will say, and must, I've underestimated Ironholds too. But I like being wrong when being right is so wrong. Best regards to all who endure the StratSpeak. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've told YRC that I'm willing to withdraw my request for a site ban and I've already stated my preference for an interaction ban. There is already widespread support for that in the community. No IBAN has been proposed yet for Nomo-YRC but I suggest that they should discuss that separately, as it's not something that has come up in the discussion yet. I've asked Dennis Brown (YRC's former mentor) to enact the IBAN between myself and YRC. Once that's done, and now that YRC is unblocked, I would consider the matter resolved. Prioryman (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]