Template:Archive box collapsable

Hi im saddened that you deemed all of my contributions to internet activism to be promotional and deleted them without so much as a discussion about deletion.

I am new to this but i am also an experienced reseracher and writer with a genuine contribution to make.

I can see how you may have seen it as promotional, but I need to know with more specificity what the key problems were.

In the absence of other input im assuming that it was not the text that i inserted that you objected to but the fact that the refrences that i made contained hyperlinks back to pages that would enbale readers to purchase the materials mentioned. if this is so i understand and would be happy to not inlcude such hyperlinks in future.

if it was that i was quoting from the same book, that is becuase the book is newly out and covers the topics in question. There were existing gaps for example in relation to anti-corporate activism, and my contributions were a genuine improvement, yet all of the text i placed has been removed becuase it was deemed promotional, seemingly without regard to whether it had intellectual value.

Would it not be better to have a deletion discussion and indicate that the hyperlinks should be removed.

Anyway, im prepared to learn by experience but i would like your honest feedback.

I would like to make a positive contribution to the pages about activism which is my academic speciality, but i could also just be discouraged.

From my experiences i can see it would be a mistake to put too much tiem into a wikipedia contribution becuase they can be axed very quickly and without discussion.

Activ9 (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that you seem to be interested in using Wikipedia to promote your book and, through that, yourself. I am sure that you are able to contribute in your area of expertise without it seeming like you are trying to promote yourself, and you are welcome to do so. Please read WP:COI before attempting any more editing, though. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks for responding, and i have read the notes about not being promotional. i understand that you deleted it for that reason, but i was hoping for some more specific feedback ot help me know how youd like it modified. This is becuase i still feel that my text was a valid contribution to some areas in which wikipedia actually had observable gaps, (anti- corporate activism; the security risks of using digital tools) but I'm guessing that the referencing and hyperlinking appears to be the issue.Id like to stop guessing and be given some definite guidance here. Its confusing becuase everything useful has been wiped not just the parts you thought overstepped the line. Im left a little confused as to whether citing a book is OK in several different places if it doesnt have hyperlinks leading back to the books page.?? Im not trying to annoy you im genuinely seeking constructive feedback on why 100% of my contributions were removed rather than just specific parts that offended wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.35.159 (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression from what you added that you are going to cite your own book as the source for whatever you add. If it is a good source, someone else will use it as a source here, so, given your conflict of interest, perhaps it would be best to let someone else with more Wikipedia experience fix up those articles. On the other hand, if you are willing to use other sources, read up on WP:RS and start editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it but it looks like someone moved it from front page first. Victuallers (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see enforcement request here. Prioryman (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can that be possible? You are under an interaction ban which prevents you from mentioning me, which I asked for because I was tired of you lying about me. And yet, here we are again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The enforcement request has been moved here at the request of Lothar von Richtofen. Prioryman (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

Please do not do that ever again. You are supposed to be ignoring Prioryman, not calling for him to be sanctioned, nor asking for his sanctions to be updated or listed properly, nor interacting with him in any way whatsoever. The sole exception to your interaction ban was and remains Errantx's talkpage for the specific purpose of discussing/appealing the terms and conditions of the interaction ban itself. Consequently your recent post on Errantx's talk was a violation of the ban, and the only reason you are not blocked for 96 hours right now is because I'm getting charitable in my old age. Believe me, were this a couple years back I would not be acting in nearly so lenient a fashion.

Whatever the problems of Prioryman's editing, the community has decided that you are not the person to be dealing with or reporting these problems, as this causes far more drama than it resolves. Disregarding the community's wishes is normally a fast route out the exit door. This is a final warning. One more violation of the ban will be regarded as deliberate wikistalking and cynical breaking of restrictions, which will earn you several months' enforced vacation courtesy of yours truly. Please bear this in mind. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever noticed the amount of drama that is caused on Wikipedia because people like you don't want to deal with obvious and longstanding problems? You do what you need to do - I know how to fill out an unblock request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, you were warned, and knew full well that posting on ANI was in violation of the ban, as I think your post after my warning here shows quite nicely. You then went ahead and posted on ANI anyway, comparing Prioryman to a manager committing sexual harassment, which was ingenious but also a fairly blatant troll. Your post on ANI also shows that you have no intent of abiding by the restrictions you are under in the slightest, somehow thinking yourself to be above them. You are not. Please reflect on this for the next 75 days. We will see you then. Moreschi (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To admins reviewing unblock requests; please do not unblock or alter the block length without 1) carefully reviewing the ANI thread and 2) talking to me first. Moreschi (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you have blocked me for posting on ANI? In a thread regarding my actions, started by a person who is under the same terms as I am? You most certainly did not make clear that I would be blocked for that. I fully expected that I would not only be allowed to participate, but entitled to make statements in my own defence. Please unblock me immediately. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, DC is right. He is allowed to present his side in a dispute resolution forum. Prioryman made several pejorative statements about DC in that discussion as well and several editors called for blocks for both parties, but you only blocked DC. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both he and Prioryman are not supposed to be presenting their sides in dispute resolution forums. This was made explicitly clear in the interaction ban, if you go back and find the original thread. I agree that Prioryman was in breach of the ban in posting on AE/ANI in the first place, as was DC for the post on ErrantX's talkpage that was related to Prioryman but unrelated to their mutual interaction ban. For this I was initially going to block both but then later decided to warn both, at which point I marked the thread as resolved assuming it was all over. Then DC went to troll ANI, which there is no way he could not have known would be in violation of the ban because 1) it was explicit in the interaction ban terms and 2) I'd just warned Prioryman for creating the thread in the first place. Moreschi (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, that was DC's first post to that ANI thread. If I were him, I would want to present my side in a forum where WP's administration is watching, especially after Prioryman trashed him in his comments. I don't think it is unreasonable to allow an editor a chance to present their side when they are the subject of discussion in a dispute resolution forum. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) There was absolutely no need to do so, as both had been warned for restriction violations and the thread was tagged as resolved and 2) he is banned from doing just that. So is Prioryman, but I cut him some slack because it was DC's initial post on ErrantX's talk that sparked this all off. Everyone is sick to their back teeth of him and Prioryman fighting at ANI, which is precisely why we have this interaction ban in the first place. I agree that 99 times out of 100 there would be no problem with someone spouting off angrily at a DR forum but this is the 1 time when they are specifically banned from doing just that. He knows this, and just in case he didn't, my warning made it very clear what the exceptions were to the interaction ban. Those do not include ANI. I am sorry, but I do not think his surprise at being blocked is in good faith, nor the unblock request. Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, you know this is a bad block and isn't going to be allowed to stand. Why not just unblock now and we can skip all of the nonsense? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My outside opinion is that you should have taken the warning and dropped it. There was nothing to be gained from further commenting on the discussion. You and drama seem heavily intertwined in my experience and if the block serves to cull the drama then it's appropriate. SÆdon^talk 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor deserves the chance to defend themselves when accused of malfeasance in a dispute resolution form. Prioryman made multiple comments in that discussion, DC made one. DC was blocked for it. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a court of law or almost any other venue I would agree without reservation. Justice, however, is not a relevant factor here. All of our policies, guidelines and practices are built for a singular purpose: building an encyclopedia. Actions should only be evaluated insofar as they contribute to that goal, and if they don't they are not appropriate. 75 days is probably a bit much though. 30 days seems more appropriate. SÆdon^talk 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And editors and admins who are helping build the 'pedia should be treated fairly. Apparently, the only reason Prioryman was allowed to comment at will in the ANI thread and DC wasn't was because Prioryman got there first. Allowing DC a chance to defend himself, then moving the discussion to a conclusion, would not have disrupted the 'pedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saedon, without any slight intended, please stay out of this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No slight taken and I will respect your request. SÆdon^talk 23:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Delicious carbuncle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See above Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The above discussion doesn't indicate why you should be unblocked. I have a feeling you're going to have to take your licks on this one and wait out the full block. An unblock seems unlikely, given the interaction ban you violated. However, I've reduced the block to 10 days, as 75 days was a bit too long. I don't believe that you actually literally compared Prioryman to a sexual predator (or whatever the comment at ANI was), I think you just meant to say that PM shouldn't be treated specially just because he writes good content (although you admittedly went down a weird path to make that comparison). But, given the interaction ban, appealing to ErrantX because PM reverted obvious vandalism is quite childish. Interaction ban means that you need to forget that Prioryman even exists. You clearly have not done this, and that is why you are currently blocked. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 23:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In what way did I violate the terms of the interaction ban? ErrantX's talk page was explicitly not included. What am I actually being blocked for? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For trolling. By complaining about an edit by PM which simply reverts unambiguously obvious vandalism, you are clearly baiting him and demonstrating to him that you are still monitoring his edits. This is a form of interaction, regardless of whether it transpired on Errant's talk page. Time to grow up. You're banned from interacting with PM. This means you need to forget he even exists, stop monitoring his edits, stop posting about him on off-wiki pages (although obviously that last one is a suggestion, as I can't force you to stop doing anything off-wiki, but it certainly is a suggestion you should take to heart). If you want to contribute here, then contribute. Write something. Obsessively monitoring someone else's edits is not a productive form of contribution to an encyclopedia, particularly when you are banned from interacting with that person. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 00:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of your interaction ban included a provision for posting certain types of complaints on Errant's talk page, but with this complaint you are clearly trying to walk as close to the line as you possibly can. This childishness will not be tolerated. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm blocked for being, in your opinion, childish? Sorry, that's not an acceptable reason. Please unblock me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC, why don't you take a break for a few hours? Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will. I'm in no hurry. In the spirit of accommodation, I am also willing to accept any length of block so long as Prioryman is given the same. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that would be more fair and just. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC, when you wake up in the morning I recommend checking the ANI discussion. If there is a majority of respondents supporting an unblock or block for both of you, I suggest posting another unblock request using the results of that discussion as the rationale. So far, most of those responding are supporting an unblock but it has only been an hour or so. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneThis is a ridiculous block that has little relevance to the issue at hand and will not stand. If Moreschi wants to play tough guy and refuses to unblock, I'm sure someone else will do so eventually. The community is not well served by admins who are more interested in reducing the "drama" than solving the problem. Prioryman's tiresome bleating seems to have distracted people from the central point that he agreed to abide by editing restrictions in order to be allowed to continue editing. He has repeatedly violated those restrictions and will continue to do so. This very thread is a violation of one of those restrictions. If the community was not serious about the sanctions, they should be withdrawn. If they are serious about them, they should ensure that they are properly recorded and that they are enforced. Framing this as a dispute between editors is really just ignoring what is at the root of the issue. Shooting the messenger will not solve the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I did not think that I was violating the interaction ban by making my post on ErrantX's talk page. If I had, I would not have made the post, or at least would have expected to be blocked. In fact, as far as I can tell, my current block is actually for posting in the ANI thread, which is completely perverse. ErrantX's talk page was explicitly excluded from the ban. I have no problem if people wish to change the terms of the ban to include the totality of Wikipedia, but I resent the implication that I was in violation of the ban as laid out. I will not mention Prioryman on-wiki, at all, anywhere, in any context, unless I have been told that I may do so. If I perceive that Prioryman has violated the terms of the interaction ban, I am apparently expected to start a thread on ANI asking for enforcement, but it is clear that I would be immediately blocked if I did this, so I will instead email an admin. I consider the current block to be completely unjustified, but I will wait it out if need be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for Errant to clarify the terms of the IBAN, no problem. Asking Errant to relay a message to Prioryman about an obviously unproblematic edit to revert obvious vandalism, that's a problem. Is that a blockable offense? Taken on its own, probably not. But it certainly indicates that you're not honoring the spirit of the interaction ban. You were clearly still monitoring his edits, and your request to relay the message is baiting. That, combined with the outburst on the ANI thread is why you're blocked. Basically, no one wants to deal with this kind of immature crap on ANI. The interaction ban was supposed to ensure that no one would have to. You can be pretty sure that any time the topic of this interaction ban shows up on ANI, one or both of you are going to get blocked for something. Why are you blocked and Prioryman isn't in this case? Probably because you were the instigator. I wouldn't be opposed to blocking Prioryman for a short time as well, but there doesn't seem to be agreement that it's necessary or justified. My advice would be to quietly wait out the block, spend some time away from Wikipedia to gather your thoughts, and then come back with the mindset that Prioryman doesn't even exist. Just do your thing, and forget about him. If you two happen to show up on the same page by coincidence, just walk away and find something else to do. That will guarantee that your block log doesn't get any longer. As I said before, I'd strongly suggest not discussing him off-wiki as well, to make it easier for you to forget that he exists. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear, my message was for ErrantX, not for Prioryman. I did not interact with Prioryman, even by proxy. What I did do was ask for ErrantX to follwo up on something related to Prioryman, and, incidentally, pointed out where Prioryman had violated one of his editing restrictions with the suggestion that Prioryman be reminded of that editing restriction. So what exactly am I blocked for, Scotty? The comment made on ErrantX's talk page? Because that was explicitly excluded from the ban. The comment on ANI? Because despite what Morechi says, there is nothing in their comment that suggests I would be blocked for making it. For being, in your opinion, childish? Because your opinion is not a reason for a block. Your latest reason is a "combination" of things, none of which on their own is grounds for a block. That's pretty weak stuff, Scotty. Why don't you just unblock me now? You know this won't last the whole 10 days and I'd prefer not to post another unblock. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request away. I'm certainly not going to unblock you, but maybe you can convince someone else. By the way, you're welcome for reducing the length of your block by 87%. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 06:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think there was any chance I would have stayed blocked for 75 days? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Delicious carbuncle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As already stated, I have no problem at all if the terms of the interaction ban are amended to include all of Wikipedia, with any violations to be handled via email with admins. Neither the original blocking admin nor the admin who reduced the block has thus far been able to offer a sensible explanation for why I am blocked. Several editors have commented on ANI about this block and there doesn't seem to be much support for it. Why am I still blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you don't yet understand the reason for the block then it is difficult to justify an unblock when you've admitted that you were still "reviewing his contributions" despite the interaction ban ϢereSpielChequers 23:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Uninvolved editor comment: While I think it is apparent that some kind of block or ban might have been warranted at some point, it is inherently unfair for one party to begin a thread and either not immediately block them or allow the other party to respond. You cannot remove DUE PROCESS from an editor and expect community support. Now if you have explicitly explained an alternative for accessing due process in response to such things, I would be willing to say you thought out the interaction ban fully. If one party can sneak into dispute threads and the other can't respond and there is no outlet for the second party to set things right, then you have a bad interaction ban, and therefore a bad block now. Equal treatment is about being fair to all parties. Reconsider how this interaction ban is structured or drop it, and apply consequences in an appropriate fashion going forward. If you like, be tough, but be fair, and do what is in the best interest of all Wikipedia editors. -- Avanu (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers, I reviewed the terms of Delicious carbuncle's interaction ban, both specifically his ban, and the general WP:IBAN page and I don't find reviewing an editor's contributions as a valid violation of an interaction ban. Could you explain your interpretation of his ban and explain how observation counts as a violation of DC's Wikipedia Interaction Ban? Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically one of them could stalk the other covertly and never act on or mention what they saw, and it would be difficult to spot that. But "they are banned from discussing each other". IBAN itself is broader "they are banned from interacting with each other in any way. For example," now granted the examples don't specifically include monitoring each other's edits; But the wording is not "they are banned from interacting with each other in the following ways:" ϢereSpielChequers 01:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, however, looking at the specifics at the ban policy, it specifically says "Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason." This would apply to DC asking for enforcement as well as Prioryman asking for enforcement (which appears to be what started all this). Please let me know if I am missing some relevant part of policy. -- Avanu (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind there is a difference between asking "I'd like to review this article at FAC, but I see that x occasionally reverts vandalism on it - would it be a breach of my ban to get involved in that article?" and stalking the person you have an interaction ban with. ϢereSpielChequers 10:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under Wikipedia does not have firm rules, I suppose I can see that you have discretion to view it in that way, although I can't say I see it strictly as applying to things that are not observable to both parties. The Banning policy for limited bans like an interaction ban specifically says that "editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other". This sort of interaction would necessarily make such edits observable by both parties but do not constitute interaction. I can see your point about the spirit of the ban not being followed, but I don't see strictly see that it is against policy to observe another editor's actions, and from what I can tell Delicious Carbuncle was asking whether the other editor's Interaction Bans were being recorded, which Prioryman took as a violation of the ban. I don't see where a strict reading of banning policy prohibits that. In fact, it seems to explicitly allow for it: "Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party." I appreciate that you are willing to discuss this, but I don't quite see how a ban is supportable via affirmative policy. The only policy support I can find for this ban is like I said a moment ago, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". -- Avanu (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avanu, I think you've quoted what to me is the nub of this "as long as they avoid each other". You seem to think that one can observe another editor's actions whilst avoiding them, to my mind if you are observing someone by monitoring their edits you are clearly not avoiding them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, given your and Prioryman's ties to Wiki UK, and DC's long-running feud with the current Wiki UK director, you were entirely the wrong admin to administer this unblock request. Defending one's mates is honorable. Blocking their foes isn't. --JN466 13:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think DC should be unblocked, given that he has made clear to stick to the strict interpretation of the interacton ban. Scottywong wrote above, DC should forget about PM and should use the ten days block to do other things. However, if the goal is to let DC get PM out of his mind, then the block is not helping at all. DC is still logging on to Wkipedia and the only think he can do here is argue about his block, which is a PM related issue.

If he is unblocked, then given that he has said that he is going to stick to the strict interpretation of the interaction ban, this would have the desired effect of DC persuing non-PM related matters here. If, however, DC is not unblocked and he serves out his 10 day ban, then he could say that he does not agree with the terms of the strict interpretation, as no deal was agreed to. I'm not saying that DC will indeed take this hard line, but it is obviously better to have DC unambiguously agree to the strict interpretation; in case of future problems, one can point to that.

You then won't get long discussions on AN/I that the strict interpretation is not valid, that only the old agrement was agreed to by both parties, that while the strict interpretation was suggested it never had the consensus needed in order to be imposed without consent etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis, whether or not the block is lifted, I am acting as if the terms of the interaction ban have changed and I will not discuss Prioryman anywhere on Wikipedia without prior assurances that I may do so. If anyone files an RFC/U regarding Prioryman or an ArbCom case is launched that pertains to Prioryman, I will ask ArbCom to allow me to contribute. Excluding me from any such process would be clearly prejudicial, so I fully expect that they would grant this request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, I am banned from interacting with Prioryman. Moreschi offered one entirely false justification for his 75 day block, ScottyWong offered a different yet equally invalid reason, and you have offered still a third. Can you please state clearly and succinctly how I am in violation of the interaction ban? It is difficult to appeal something that appears to be so amorphous. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DC, sorry if you think we are inconsistent or unclear. There is an interaction ban between you and Prioryman. We are hoping that you can come to accept that and find other things to do here on the pedia. Watching Prioryman with an intent to ask for the IBAN to be lifted if someone else starts an RFC or ArbCom case involving him leaves me to suspect that you haven't yet accepted that. I do note the assurances you've given above, but at the same time you don't seem to accept that monitoring Prioryman's edits was itself a breach of an interaction ban. Of course it is possible that in monitoring your own watchlist you will come across edits by Prioryman on a page you've edited, and such circumstances might well lead to you asking an admin to advise whether either or both of you can still edit that page. ϢereSpielChequers 10:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is inconsistent. DC arguably violated the ban by posting on ErrantX's page. Prioryman blatantly violated the ban by starting drama at AE and ANI. Nobody Ent 11:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC, if you go beyond the wording of civility what it comes down to is don't be excessively annoying to other editors. No one is terribly interested in refereeing squabbles between editors and parsing out who exactly is being more disruptive, we just want the drama to stop. While both of you have failed to disengage, you kowtow less, and, in most societies, including Wikipedia, that results in a greater negative reaction than verbally stating/promising to follow the rules while actually not. So, at this point, I'd suggest you should decide what your priority is: if it is to resume editing your best best is a unblock with a simple declarative sentence I will not interact in any with Prioryman; if I feel he is violating our ban I will privately email administrator(s). If your priority is to be treated fairly and evenly -- no human society actually does that, certainly not Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 11:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Ent, much of my effort here on Wikipedia deals with unequal treatment of editors here. There is a disturbing "us and them" mentality here on Wikipedia, where the "them" varies but the "us" is always the same. To some extent this is human nature, but much of it is completely avoidable and easily identified. At the moment, I appear to be strongly associated with "them" so any otherwise valid observations I may have about Prioryman's actions are dismissed and the wagons circle around him. That's not unexpected, but I am not willing to sit out an unjustified block simply because people find my foolish desire for rational administration to be annoying. Your advice is good advice, but I would prefer that the unblocking admin is fully aware of my intentions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]