Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751

---

(Note: this was originally filed at

, as a more appropriate forum.)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Prioryman (talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community

Diffs

of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

• 00:04, 2 May 2012?

This edit on a user talk page repeats exactly the same subject matter as the topic of the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard that led to the interaction ban between DC and myself. To summarise: DC has taken it upon himself to act as a self-appointed vigilante "policing" my edits. He has stalked me on and off-wiki for nearly two years, even going so far as to create a "monitoring" thread about me on Wikipedia Review. This has led to repeated clashes on-wiki. An interaction ban was proposed by User:28bytes and enacted by User:ErrantX to enforce a complete disengagement between us. Under the terms of the ban, we are prohibited from "discussing each other, or interacting" at any venue. A narrow exemption is given for appealing the ban on the user talk page of ErrantX or to the Arbcom: "Please do not comment on, or otherwise interact with him, at any venue. If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban), or to Arbcom." [1]

DC has blatantly flouted the IBAN by continuing his vigilante behaviour on a matter which is not remotely related to an appeal of the ban. This is especially egregious as (1) he has previously been blocked for breaching the ban [2] and (2) as noted

It's obvious from this incident that despite what he told Future Perfect, DC has not ceased stalking my edits and taking it upon himself to act as a self-appointed vigilante. This is precisely the type of behaviour that necessitated the IBAN in the first place and is an absolutely unambiguous violation of a clearly worded interaction ban. With two violations in only six weeks, it's clear that he has no intention of stopping this obsessive behaviour and the only thing that is going to put an end to this once and for all is a substantial block for him. Total disengagement has to mean just that, otherwise this IBAN is meaningless. The admin who imposed the ban, ErrantX, has said that if another admin "want[s] to impost a block on DC for violating the IBAN that is fine by me."[5]

For the record, I have abided by my side of the ban and have refrained from interacting with DC, or commenting on or off-wiki on him or his interactions with others. I've said repeatedly that I want nothing to do with him and I've stood by that intention. This intervention by DC has come out of the blue with no provocation of any kind on my part. I'm deeply frustrated that despite my restraint and avoidance of trouble, this nonsense is still continuing despite the interaction ban which was supposed to end it. Please resolve this once and for all. Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreschi, how have I violated the interaction ban? Are you seriously suggesting that it's a violation of the interaction ban to ask for the interaction ban to be enforced? How am I supposed to deal with violations of the ban, then? I'd like to remind you that I am the victim of a violation here, not the perpetrator of one. I've been keeping my head down and out of trouble, and have done nothing to provoke DC into going after me yet again. I am not the one causing the problem. Prioryman (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are [the victim] which is what makes this rather tricky to handle. Had you not considered using email to request that ErrantX or someone else deal with DC's post, rather than creating more drama on-wiki? But I can see how you might not think of that. Hmm. Technically I think you're both in breach of your ban, but blocking people on technical grounds seems rather off. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately when I raised it with ErrantX he declined to enforce his own interaction ban - his words: "I've had my fill of "OMG DRAMAZ" (one reason I mostly ignored DC's comment) for the month, so I'll let some other admin inherit this headache." [6] This leaves me with no recourse whatsoever other than to ask "some other admin" to deal with it, which is what I'm doing here. I don't know who specifically to ask. I want nothing to do with DC and only want this person to leave me alone as he is supposed to be doing. I want to disengage from DC but he isn't disengaging from me despite the IBAN. Can someone please get this sorted out? Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

• Imposition of the interaction ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 19:02, 3 May 2012?

Huh. Well, my initial reaction is to block Delicious Carbuncle (96h) for violating his interaction ban, and then block Prioryman (96h) for also violating the interaction ban. Having done my homework on this, however, I see there is a significantly controversial back-story here, so I'll wait for others to weigh in and see what they think. Moreschi (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the block of DC would be per Prioryman's reasoning, since the post on ErrantX's talkpage is clearly not appealing or discussing the interaction ban and surely constitutes more stalking and harassment in violation of the terms of the ban. Blocking Prioryman would be because DR processes were specifically included in the terms of the interaction ban, and the correct course of action, if he wanted anything done about DC's post, would be to email ErrantX or an uninvolved sysop, rather than create more on-wiki drama here, at AE, ErrantX's talk, and Future Perfect's talk. But my reasoning on blocking Prioryman might be off, so feedback would be appreciated. This is a tricky one to handle. Moreschi (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm now significantly less inclined to block Prioryman, as we don't usually do purely procedural blocks when there was no intent to violate the ban. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If AE requests are prohibited by the ban, that's quite unfair; either user could do something to the other, have the other report it as a violation, and succeed in getting the other one blocked for reporting it some way or another. It's only fair to permit either user to report alleged violations at AE. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would not be absurd if one of the goals of the ban is that neither party should be allowed to bring reports against the other, regardless of the actions of the other. Basically a "even if you see him torching a barn, you cannot call the police because we don't trust you not to abuse the police phone number" situation. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You're half-right. One of the goals of the ban is to prevent either party bringing reports against the other (in fact, that was at my own insistence). However, where your analogy falls down is that this is not a "torching [someone else']s barn" situation but a "punching me in the face" situation. I'm not raising this thread because DC has done something against someone else, I'm raising it because he's done something against me, in open contravention of the ban. Conversely DC is in the kind of situation you envisage, because his intervention on ErrantX's talk page was yet another attempt to get me sanctioned for what he sees, wrongly, as a violation of my existing sanctions. That has nothing to do with administration of the interaction ban. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the edit for which DC reported me to ErrantX is this one, where I reverted a vandal who had changed the title of Battlefield Earth (film) - a featured article that I co-wrote - to "Battlefield Fuckstick". I hardly need to point out how petty and vindictive it is to try to get me sanctioned for that. Prioryman (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreschi, please go with your gut -- block both. 96hours, 96 days, whatever it takes.

Nobody Ent

19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair, I was not involved with the initial ban, so I don't have the full context, but the idea that two people don't get along to the point they can't even be trusted to call the cops when one is beating the other is not totally lacking in logic. Possibly common sense, but not logic. I would defer to Moreschi's proposed course. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How would blocking the victim of an interaction ban violation possibly be fair? I've been targeted for two years by this individual. He's been given an interaction ban with me which was supposed to have stopped it. He's continued despite the ban. How is that in any way my fault? Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a two-way topic ban, not a one-way ban towards him. That is a presumption that both parties are at fault and neither is the victim. MBisanz ^talk 19:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a two-way ban, which I fully supported in the earlier AN discussion. I specifically called for a total disengagement, each of us ceasing to have any involvement with the other. That's not a dispensation of "fault" - I simply don't want to have anything to do with him. I've abided by my side of the interaction ban. He's violated it twice in six weeks and has already been blocked 48 hours for his previous violation. Draw your own conclusions. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• sigh* I'd hoped that this would not spin up again after I managed to drag these two users kicking and screaming apart before. Long story short; they simply cannot cope with each other. DC managed to keep away from Prioryman for some weeks; but then just posted to my user talk raising not only a valid matter I had neglected but, as prioryman mentions, another matter which indicates he is still sniffing around Prioryman. My inclination in such cases is usually to revert and leave it at that for the first few times - and hope that by keeping the matter de-escalated things will continue to stay nice and relaxed. However Prioryman has, yet again, risen to the bait and dragged this across various noticeboards (there was no initial request to me to take extra action). As I said to him earlier; a key part of the interaction ban is being able to ignore the other person, something he has failed to do.

The point of the IBAN was to stop the disruption across the project space that they caused by their clashing; as Prioryman has demonstrated, this has not worked.

Both these users need their heads banging together and to be set down in their respective corners. What to do? I'd be inclined to follow Moreschi's gut reaction - a longer block for DC for flagrant violation of the IBAN and its intention. And a block for Prioryman (24h?). With the hope that this impresses on them one last time that the community is fed up of their bickering match.

In terms of the restriction on noticeboards, that was finicky because pretty much both of them complained about the other misusing DR processes. Basically it was a pain in the neck. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(

Nobody Ent

19:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I care because I've been targeted by DC for two years and I want it to stop. Prioryman (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no to a block on me - again, I am the victim here. I did not ask for DC to intervene. I have not had anything to do with him since the IBAN. I've followed my side of it. I'm sure you're fed up with the drama, but it is not my fault that DC has gone after me again. If you had enforced your own interaction ban, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Instead you invited DC to email you privately to report issues about me unrelated to the ban! How can that possibly be compatible with DC being instructed by you and the community to disengage from me? As I've said repeatedly, I want nothing to do with this individual and you seem to be blaming me for asking for his disengagement to actually be enforced. That is grossly unfair. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the impression that an interaction ban was not a good solution to this sort of a problem. If someone is stalking and harrassing, then this is a rather one sided problem. If to keep the peace both sides agree to an interaction ban instead of fighting out a lengthy dispute resolution process here (e.g. an ArbCom case), then that is in the Wiki-sprit of dropping the stick and moving on. But the problem then arises later, if this interaction ban is interpreted in general terms outside of the original context in which it was implemented. I have experienced this sort of a problem myself a long time ago here in relation to the issues regarding Brews Ohare's ArbCom sanctions.

I think that one should not impose interactions bans at all, and instead appeal to the fact that people here should behave as grown up adults. If people stalk and harrass, then that in itself is grounds for Adminstrative action. So, you can file reports at AE, but if you file misleading reports, then you'll lose te right to post there. An interaction ban is more suitable for a Kindergarten like setting, there putting fighting toddlers apart for a while can work. Count Iblis (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alright. I've given DC this very sternly worded warning telling him that future violations of the ban will be regarded as stalking and get him a very lengthy block. Prioryman is asked to report future suspected violations, should he so feel the need, privately via email to myself or another uninvolved adminstrator, rather than creating a massive thread on the drama-boards to the exasperation of all. Nobody gets blocked, largely thanks to a somewhat surprising outburst of charity and goodwill on my part, which will doubtless come as a surprise to everyone. Now, can I tag this as resolved? Moreschi (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, that is acceptable. I hope there won't be any further problems. The matter's resolved as far as I'm concerned. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What a load of absolute bullshit. I asked, more than once, for an interaction ban because of the persistent attacks from Prioryman, many of them containing demonstrably false statements. Perversely, the ban was only enacted when I asked on ANI for Prioryman's many sanctions to be fully and properly recorded. As usual, Prioryman's aim here is entirely self-serving. Moreschi describes him as a "victim". A victim of what? Of having the community hold him to the sanctions imposed on him? Of being asked to account for his edits which violate those sanctions?

I do not understand why anyone would object to having Prioryman's sanctions fully and properly recorded. When I asked for this in the original ANI thread, Prioryman refused to enumerate the sanctions of which he was aware. This is hardly a show of good faith. ErrantX undertook to follow up on this issue, so I asked him about on his user page, which was explicitly exempt from the ban, when it was brought to my attention that Prioryman was petitioning for one of his sanctions to be lifted. A sanction that is not recorded on

, incidentally.

Contrary to what Prioryman states, I did not ask for him to be "sanctioned" for this edit which is in violation of teh sanctions given to ChrisO/Prioryman in

) in violation of the same restrictions.

Prioryman has a long and spotty history with violating or skirting editing restrictions. The problem here is not that I am monitoring his contributions for violations, but the violations themselves. ArbCom has tended to turn a wilfully blind eye to Prioryman's tendency for lying, sockpuppetry, and conflict because he is a fairly prolific creator of high-quality content. While I appreciate his positive contributions, his negative actions are harmful to the project and should not be excused. This type of bad behaviour is akin to a high-performing manager who sexually harasses their employees. Most companies have realized that this is not a good trade-off. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So in that one post here you not only managed to violate your interaction ban but also compare Prioryman to a sexual harasser. Well done. That has got you blocked for the next 75 days for violating your ban after being warned (and per your talkpage knowing full well that you were doing this and you would get blocked as a result) and for flagrant contempt of the restrictions you are under. I'm sorry, but it is very explicitly not your problem to deal with Prioryman's edits. That is our job. The community has decided that your attempts to monitor his contributions are disruptive and that you two need to be kept away from each other, and if you can't be bothered to abide by this, the next block will be for even longer. Moreschi (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That is totally undue - 75 days - clearly this dispute is a two way street - do you think such attack administration is beneficial to lowering disruption - well anyone can edit wikipedia and they will -even if you attack or not - they will come back and attack harder - this sort of disruptive administration will be the death of en wikipedia - Youreallycan 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, terrible block. I...wow. Arkon (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking it's ridiculous in the first place that ANI posts regarding enforcement of the interaction ban are being construed as violation of the interaction ban? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I just hope a clear minded admin steps in at this point. Arkon (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not just referring to DC's block, but Prioryman being accused of ban violation when he first brought this here. I can't remember this ever being standard in dealing with topic bans. I think this discussion should reset, exclude pointing at posts in the section as evidence of violation, and just focus on the reported events so we can actually deal with what transpired. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Prioryman is completely in the right to make a report about the violation. He followed the rules in the first place by contacting Errant, as he was supposed to, but Errant didn't want to do anything. And it wasn't that he saw anything unactionable, he just didn't want to be involved. So Prioryman took the logical next step and filed an AE report. I don't see an issue from him here. If DC violated the ban, then he was right to report it, since Prioryman is the one being harassed. Silverseren^C 22:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, the accusation of an interaction ban violation from Prioryman was due to DC posting on Errants page, which as you said, was as he was suppose to do. Then he went forum shopping, doing the exact same thing he was complaining about DC doing. DC comes here and responds in kind, and bam, block. Crazy. Arkon (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to correct you about being "supposed to" post on ErrantX's user talk page. The ban permits both parties to use ErrantX's page to raise issues concerning the interaction ban and only that subject. ErrantX did not enact the interaction ban in order to confine the dispute to his talk page - the ban is there to stop the dispute. Prioryman (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to Silver seren's opinion that it was the right thing to do. Do you have a diff for the 'only that subject' part? I couldn't dig it out from the links on the iban logging. Honestly, Errant is as much to blame for all this as anyone. He took ownership of the issue when it was first raised, then ran away when the inevitable happened. Bleh. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see [12] for ErrantX's post imposing the interaction ban. It requires total disengagement in all venues but allows appeals against the ban on ErrantX's talk page or to Arbcom. The terms of the ban were reiterated by Future Perfect here. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Arkon (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping is when someone disagrees with you and you go somewhere else to try again. ErrantX didn't disagree, he just didn't want to deal with it. A new forum was the appropriate move. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-action would seem to imply disagreement, or at the least, non-agreement. However, putting that aside, it doesn't change how bad this block is. Even his reasoning in the post above is incorrect on the facts, "the community" never decided anything about this iBAN. Arkon (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have left fairly extensive rationale for this block at DC's talk. It is more complicated than it appears and requires that you read through the archived discussions that lead to the original interaction ban that ErrantX imposed, which I strongly recommend that people do before commenting. These two are not supposed to fighting at ANI, nor reporting each other here, nor discussing each other anywhere, which is why 1) DC's post at ErrantX's talk was harassment, in violation of his ban and 2) arguably so was Prioryman bringing it to ANI/AE instead of reporting the original harassment through email, say. This is arguable, and you could argue that it's fine for him (Prioryman) to do so, but please bear in mind that the original intention of the ban was to stop them fighting in these forums.

• At any rate, after I have warned both, rather than blocked, DC then goes and posts here in loud, angry fashion, which is exactly what he is specifically banned from doing. Unsurprisingly, he gets blocked. I am extremely sceptical that this was a surprise to him. At any rate, if someone wants to amend the block length (to anywhere from 48 hours up), then please do so, but please do not unblock without talking it over with me first unless some vast and extremely overwhelming community consensus appears. I will be asleep for the next 8 hours or so, but back online then to talk it through some more if required. Moreschi (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• DC coming here to defend his actions following an accusation of ban violation was fine. His tone in doing so shouldn't factor in. A topic ban shouldn't preclude reporting violations of it, and if that's the case, it needs to be expressed explicitly in the ban terms that an admin's talk page or email are the only acceptable venues for reporting violations. If that's the not the case, the posting to ANI from either party regarding possible violation should not be used as evidence of violation themselves. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• (EC) *:Diffs for the assertions in the first part please? (Not meaning for that to be jerky, but I seriously can't find the exact wording implemented). Secondly, I don't understand why you would think DC should be unable to respond to this request. Unless I missed something, that was his first and only post to this section. This whole thing was the biggest baiting I've seen in a while, don't act surprised that someone rises to it. Arkon (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have read through this entire thread, and frankly, I feel like I am a kindergarten teacher trying to control a bunch of 3-year-olds. This is ridiculous. DC's initial complaint on Errant's talk page is about reverting obvious vandalism. This is childish. Prioryman's response to this is equally childish. Ignoring it would have been the right thing to do. Given the interaction ban, I would be in favor of a short block for Prioryman (perhaps 24-72 hours). I am also in favor of a much longer block for DC, but 75 days is cruel and unusual punishment. I am going to reduce that to 10 days, which will be by far the longest block on his block log at this point. I'm not going to block Prioryman myself, but I think that it would be plausible if someone else decided to. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • On the matter of Prioryman's edits to Battlefield Earth (film): these are covered by his ARBSCI sanctions, which are:
  • 17) ChrisO (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • page moves • rights) has proposed a binding voluntary restriction[161] that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. ChrisO is instructed to abide by these restrictions.
  • ChrisO (Prioryman) was the editor who originally took that article to FA status. Under the terms of his sanction, he is entitled to make edits for the purpose of "directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources". This is reasonably interpreted to mean that he is allowed to maintain his FAs in the topic area, and is allowed to revert vandalism thereto. By my reading, his recent half a dozen edits to that article did not violate his Scientology topic ban. --JN466 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from DC's talk

): This 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)

Evaluating the block

This block by User:Moreschi is appalling. First of all, the interaction ban was voluntary. Secondly, ErrantX clearly stated that his talk page was exempt from it ("my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban)"). Thirdly, ErrantX promised he would make sure Prioryman's sanctions were correctly logged, which he failed to do, and DC was reminding him of. Fourthly, Prioryman is misrepresenting SirFozzie when he describes the interaction ban above as "one arbitrator User:SirFozzie has endorsed and asked to be enforced. [13]". SirFozzie stated that "folks under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request." This refers to folks under ARBCC sanctions; besides, DC did not comment on that request or at RFAR, but on ErrantX's talk page about ErrantX's admitted tardiness in doing what he had promised to do (and which was part of the interaction ban deal). Fifth, Prioryman has broken the voluntary interaction ban by posting here and at AE. Sixth, 75 days is completely, utterly, absurdly over the top even if there were grounds for a block. Seventh, looking at DC's talk page, it seems rather clearly the result of a rush of blood on Moreschi's part. Please!

• Unblock Delicious carbuncle, trout Moreschi. Not his finest hour. --JN466 23:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lessen to 48 hours, same for Prioryman They both screwed up, 48 hours for the first screwup seems ok to me. Arkon (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Block reduced to 10 days. I'd support a 48 hour block for Prioryman, but I'm hesitant to make that particular decision without further discussion. -Scottywong| communicate _ 23:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, I am the victim here. I am being stalked and harassed. I thought after the interaction ban was imposed that I would not have to put up with DC again. Instead, just a few hours ago, he posted that he was "reviewing [Prioryman's] contributions for violations of his many sanctions" [sic] [14]. That is blatant wikistalking, and is exactly what he was forbidden to do. ErrantX declined to act on this violation and said to take it to another admin. Timotheus Canens and Cailil on AE advised that it was the wrong forum [15] [16], and Lothar von Richthofen advised that it be taken to AN/I instead [17]. That is exactly what I have done. Why should I be sanctioned for following the advice of others and asking, once and for all, for this harassment and stalking to be stopped? What was the point of the interaction ban in the first place if it's not going to stop this individual's constant attempts to get at me? I am not the one continuing this dispute! Prioryman (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • DC violated the topic ban, and that gives Prioryman the right to report it. Seems like common sense to me. Though going forward, if reporting violations is limited to email or talk pages, the ban restrictions should be amended to include that. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • DC posted on ErrantX's talk page, which was agreed to be out of scope of the interaction ban. I don't think his posting there victimised you; you could have completely ignored it, or put your side in an e-mail to ErrantX, or indeed on ErrantX's talk page. No? --JN466 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thought experiment for Prioryman: what do you think would have happened if you had completely ignored DC's comment on Errant's talk page (about your edit to revert obvious vandalism)? Consider that it seemed likely that every other admin would have ignored his comment as well. -Scottywong| chatter _ 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I already answered that question elsewhere but I'll spell it out for you. DC has expressed his explicit intention to continue stalking my edits. Two days after he posted on ErrantX's talk page, DC posted here that he was "reviewing [Prioryman's] contributions for violations". The obvious implication is that DC is compiling some kind of dossier or case against me, either to post to ErrantX's talk page or on the "monitoring" thread that he is maintaining about me on Wikipedia Review. The interaction ban was supposed to prevent any interactions, and this specific type of interaction - his attempts to "police" my edits - is the exact reason why the interaction ban was imposed in the first place. (Read the original AN discussion linked at the top of this thread.) I've had no choice but to report this violation here because DC has made it clear that he intends further violations. Frankly I would have dropped the matter if DC hadn't been so explicit about his intentions to continue harassing me in violation of the interaction ban. Prioryman (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock in exchange for DC agreeing to stick to the original agreement, i.e. no comments on Prioryman except about modifications of the interaction ban and that only on ErrantX's page, and reports of violations of the interaction ban only via email. This would mean that DC agrees that he is not supposed to report (perceived) violations of Prioryman's ArbCom restrictions, as these do not involve this interaction ban. Count Iblis (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point ErrantX should be removed from the process. This incident has demonstrated his unwillingness to enforce it. Arkon (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Undo block or block both DC and Prioryman DC deserved a right to respond to the ANI post to defend himself. He was blocked for making one post. As you can see above, Prioryman continues to post in this thread. Why was DC blocked and not Prioryman? There hasn't been equal treatment here. I would say either lift DC's block, or block the both of them for engaging in identical behavior. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked direct questions by Arkon, JN466 and Scottywong, which I've answered to the best of my ability. It's late now, and I'm tired, so I don't propose to contribute further to this discussion tonight. Prioryman (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is somewhat related...Prioryman, you have banned me from your talk page several times, yet you have appeared in almost every single administrative forum or noticeboard discussion to oppose me over the last six months or so which I initiated or was the primary player. If you don't want to interact with me, then why do you follow me around Wikipedia trying to give me a hard time? Do you think your behavior towards me is related to the way you are dealing with this issue with DC? Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's I guess the paradox of this sort of a situation and why I think formal interaction bans or informal ones are not a good thing. You have (in general) two people who don't get along, precisely because they do adversly interact with each other, and then you want to do someting about the negative interactions by making an agreement to not to interact with each other. But the underlying problems are then not resolved, the negative interactions are just a symptom of these problems plus the inability to self-moderate when talking to each other. So, perhaps better to impose a "forced interaction restriction" where two such people are only allowed to collaborate with each other on a few articles for a while :) Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a compelling view. IMO, what is happening here is that DC is trying to resolve what he feels are some leftover baggage from Prioryman's previous account(s). Prioryman takes exception to DC's efforts. If WP's administration (represented in this case, I guess, by ErrantX) would give a definitive answer to DC's question, that might help things. DC didn't interact with Prioryman in this instance, he asked ErrantX to follow-up on his earlier request. Prioryman took exception to DC's question even though it was not in a forum in which Prioryman was participating and escalated the drama. The underlying problem remains...does DC have a legitimate grievance with how Prioryman's prior record of sanctions is being handled and is WP's administration addressing it? If not, should they? If not, then DC needs to be told so and the decision needs to be recorded somewhere. Cla68 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• If there's a legitimate issue regarding Prioryman's sanctions, any one of the 47,315,812 editors who are not subject to an interact ban with him can follow up on it. That's the whole point. 28bytes (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Per my reasoning on DC's talk.
  ^talk
  09:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block of DC. The difference between the two is this: Prioryman's actions in all of this were narrowly focussed on the perceived need to enforce the interaction ban, triggered by its previous violation by DC. DC's response above in this thread, in contrast, was not focussed on solving this present issue (e.g. defending himself etc), but on re-hashing the old dispute, i.e. repeating exactly the kind of behaviour that the interaction ban was meant to stop. Fut.Perf. ¤ 05:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Which block are you endorsing? The 75 or the now reduced to 10? Arkon (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Well, 75 was maybe a bit on the long side, but the next time something like this happens, a block of that length might well be on the table again. Fut.Perf. ¤ 05:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block DC should know better. He's certainly been around the block enough times. Furthermore, this entire mess is his fault in the first place. If he could restrain his urge to be wiki-mall cop then this entire thread wouldn't exist. Jtrainor (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block clearly still stalking the other editor and showing no signs of wanting to stop that behaviour. Agathoclea (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Some chronology

I may be in the minority here, but I think Moreschi was perfectly correct to block DC after all this. Here's what I see:

1. Prioryman going about his business, not bothering anyone.
2. DC posts to ErrantX's talk page to start yet another thread about Prioryman.
3. A bunch of pointless drama ensues.

If DC stopped posting about Prioryman, we wouldn't have to go through this garbage constantly. DC just needs to leave Prioryman alone, and if he's not willing to do that, a block is perfectly appropriate. Just take a look at his response to being blocked. Not even the slightest hint of recognition that he needs to leave Prioryman alone, just a bunch of

, etc., etc. This is not a good thing. If DC is willing to acknowledge that he should not be starting threads about Prioryman, and commit to not doing it anymore, anywhere, I would support an immediate unblock. But he needs to get it first.

Quite obviously what got this particular episode started was DC posting about something Prioryman did that had nothing to do with DC, and DC was rightfully blocked for it. If Prioryman had started a thread about DC doing something that had nothing to do with Prioryman, then he should have been blocked too. But blocking Prioryman for requesting the interaction ban be enforced is a completely asinine idea: enforcing the interaction ban is the only way to get these two to shut up about each other. Just letting them test the edges on ErrantX's talk page or wherever leads to more threads like this. Whoever starts it gets blocked, period. DC started it, Moreschi blocked him, and if DC has a "light bulb" moment and gets why he was blocked, we can unblock him and hope we never have to see one of these idiotic threads again. 28bytes (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That's it exactly. Perfect explanation. Silverseren^C 03:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

28bytes, DC said to Errant that Prioryman's various sanctions are still not correctly or fully logged. Now, if that is so, don't you agree it should be fixed? It was part of the deal last time round. [18]. Yet it still hasn't been done. I can't agree that DC pointing that out, when everybody had forgotten – again – is entirely useless.

We must also note in the timeline that

• Prioryman e-mailed Moreschi today before Moreschi blocked DC [19].
• Prioryman posted to your talk page too and e-mailed you today [20][21] before you made your comments here, no doubt based on your involvement in the March interaction ban discussion.
• Prioryman posted to Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page [22].
• Prioryman posted to SirFozzie's talk page several times [23][24].
• Prioryman asked to speak to Carcharoth on IRC [25].

People tend to be wary when they see one party in a dispute contacting multiple admins, and then see some of these admins who have had personal contact with just one of the parties intervening decisively.

I also see Prioryman commenting in AfDs, since the interaction ban, shortly after DC has already commented, and in the opposite way: see [26], [27] (the latter being an AfD that DC raised, and where Prioryman then was one of the first to vote keep).

All in all, I do not see Prioryman stepping away. Evidence suggests that he is following DC's contributions, and sought to fully capitalise on DC's post – made on a talk page that was explicitly exempt from the interaction ban – by contacting half a dozen administrators, and himself violating the interaction ban to start noticeboard threads. Prioryman's aggression is on a completely different scale to DC's here, and very specifically focused on getting sanctions. I see no admin contacts initiated by Delicious carbuncle in his or her edit history. Again, in disputes like this, it's the editor who gives the appearance of canvassing admins that makes me more uneasy. We've seen this before, especially at AE, and it should not be allowed to work: justice should not just be done, it should be seen to be done.

And lastly, I repeat that -- apparently -- we still do not have Prioryman's sanctions from his previous accounts properly logged. Perhaps we could keep in mind that we should achieve certainty on this point here, and perhaps Prioryman would be so good as to assist this time. JN466 04:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Two things: if there is unfinished business regarding Prioryman's sanctions, why can't you or Cla68 work with ArbCom or whomever to get it sorted? Either it's important, in which case

WP:SOFIXIT

, or it isn't. Am I correct that nobody – including you, Cla68 and ErrantX – have done anything about it since the last time DC brought it up? I have no idea if it's important or not, but the idea that it's only important when DC's bringing attention to it seems a little strange.

Secondly, Prioryman seemed perfectly fine with the resolution to this being a note from Moreschi to DC to knock it off. If DC had just acknowledged the warning instead of launching an AN/I tirade and posting yet another edit summary taunting Prioryman by linking to an old account of his (the exact same thing he got blocked for doing last time), we'd all have moved onto other things by now.

My preferred solution to this is that DC gets why this is not the kind of thing you do when you're under an interaction ban with someone, agrees to drop the stick, gets unblocked and we put this whole mess behind us. And then you, Cla68 and anyone else who's not interaction-banned with Prioryman can sort out the sanctions business. 28bytes (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I just spent half an hour and have located a list of prior sanctions the arbitrators compiled

WP:RESTRICT should be up to date now, and we should be able to put this one to rest. Cheers. JN466

04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

28bytes, you don't see anything wrong with Prioryman messaging all those admins? Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@JN: thanks for sorting that out. Always nice when we can put things to rest. @Cla68: presumably he wanted to draw sympathetic eyes to the situation, kind of like you did by starting a Wikipediocracy thread about it. Probably a little canvass-y of both of you, to be honest, but I'm not too inclined to get worked up about it. 28bytes (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My intention with the Wikipediocracy thread was to put public pressure on Prioryman to stop being so obsessive about things, i.e. to correct his behavior. And that's the same thing I'm trying to do here. I don't post to Wikipediacracy with the intention of canvassing for support, because I know by experience that equal, if not more, numbers of observers of that forum are likely to go against whatever is being advocated there. That's why it isn't canvassing to post there, because everyone can see it. Prioryman didn't post in a publicly viewable forum, he emailed or messaged several admins. You don't see a problem with that? DC was blocked for making a single comment on an ANI thread. Prioryman emails several admins trying to get them on his side. Who has the higher moral ground here? Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You're a mod there, I presume you discuss editors and events here in private forums there, no? 28bytes (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting off track here.... Arkon (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, what 28bytes says. I would dearly love to give DC a "lightbulb moment" where he goes "aha!", and, Scrooge-like, finally sees what he is doing wrong. He simply does not need to make himself responsible for sorting out whatever problems Prioryman may be causing. There is an entire community of responsible editors, administrators and non-administrators, willing and able to do so. All he is doing is wasting everyone's time by causing even more dramaboard nonsense, caused by Prioryman - understandably enough, I think - feeling stalked and harassed.
• A couple misconceptions to clear up. Prioryman's email to me noted on my talkpage was relating to the warnings I gave them both - he wanted some minor cleanup, which I haven't done as events overtook this. This was before DC flamed out on ANI and did not contain any calls to block anyone. At this point Prioryman was actually happy with the outcome, which is definitely a point in his favour. DC, however, continued to unrepentantly press the issue and seems completely averse to disengagement, even when explicitly told "back off or you get blocked". I really don't see another way around this short of compelling that disengagement at the point of escalating blocks.
• If DC does have this eureka moment and commits, once and for all, to leaving Prioryman alone - ignoring him completely, not following his edits, just not mentioning his name on Wikipedia here at all, then I guess we can unblock him. I don't think this is going to happen, so as it is I'm fine with the 10 days' block Scotty put in place. YMMV on block lengths, as always. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

See statement by DC below. Part of that reads, "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." Are folks happy with that? --JN466 16:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This leaves me in two minds: on the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable commitment, but he had made similar promises in the context of his last unblock too, and both then and now his comments show not the slightest sign of understanding that what he did was actually wrong, so I'm not really confident he won't be seeking some new loophole again. Fut.Perf. ¤ 16:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The only loophole I see is mentioning other accounts operated or believed to have been operated by Prioryman. That loophole could be closed. --JN466 16:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can think of others, quite similar to what happened here today. That's why I want the additional clarifications I sketched out in my proposal below. Fut.Perf. ¤ 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your wording looks okay, including Prioryman's addition. The only thing worries me is that I can't realistically see either of these editors ever making an ANI post about their interaction ban that would not somehow involve a comment on the other. Would you consider going with DC's preference, i.e. that either party would have to e-mail an admin, who can then raise the matter for community discussion (not sanction the other editor!) if they think the matter has merit and should be discussed at WP:AN? --JN466 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to leave these things on-wiki, because it's more transparent. I don't think it should be so difficult for a complainant to restrict their complaint to something simple and factual like: "X is interaction-banned from me. Today, he turned up on a page I had just edited, reverted me, and left me an aggressive edit summary. Can somebody please tell him no to?" That would be quite okay. What would not be okay is: "X reverted me and left me an aggressive edit summary. That's so typical of X again. He has been doing that for years, and he's overall totally disruptive. Remember, last year I had to report him for biting that innocent newbie! Oh, and he's also been edit-warring on that other page for the last few days." That would not be okay. Likewise, for the other party, it would be absolutely okay to respond with "Sorry, didn't even notice Y had been editing that article. My edit summary wasn't even directed at him". What would not be okay would be a response like "Ah, sure, that's Y again with his dishonest accusations. Don't you all see what a nasty piece of work Y is. By the way, I suspect he is in reality from Boise and has hidden sympathies for sword-wielding-skeleton theorists!" It shouldn't really be difficult for two reasonably intelligent adults to stay on the safe side in this. Fut.Perf. ¤ 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I now see in DC's latest posting on his talkpage [28] that he is still refusing to accept even as much as the idea that his posting on ErrantX's page the other day was a violation of the interaction ban – and that not merely because it was on the allegedly "exempt" page, but also because it wasn't "for Prioryman" but only "related to him". This shows to what lengths DC is prepared to go wikilawyering his way around the restriction, and how little prepared he is to let the matter go. He is still refusing to grasp that he is not only expected not to talk to the other guy, but also not to talk about him, and he is still determined to keep actively seeking loopholes. With this stance of denial on DC's part, I really see little basis for an unblock, not now and really not in ten days either. Fut.Perf. ¤ 12:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone had left this message on my talk page: "Per both your agreements I am imposing a binding interaction ban on you and Prioryman. Please do not comment on, or otherwise interact with him, at any venue. If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban), or to Arbcom. I hope that satisfies everyone. " (my emphasis) I would have read that to mean that Errant's talk page is excluded from the ban. So would most reasonable people. JN466 14:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If it was only that, yes. But you are forgetting the very clear additional message given to him later, here. He knew that he was not supposed to use that exemption as a loophole for continuing the fight, rather than for making mere procedural requests if and when necessary. Also, you are forgetting that he is now claiming yet another, independent reason why he thinks the posting was okay. It is mainly this new, additional argument that shows he's unwilling to accept a change in behaviour. Fut.Perf. ¤ 14:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the above comment by User:Future Perfect demonstrates an inability to understand to simplest of instructions in the English language. Is there some remedial text on English comprehension that can be given to administrators, to ensure that such lapses do not occur in the future? John lilburne (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence that FPaS's interpretation of the ban represents community consensus; logically the wording used by the closing admin (ErrantX) should be considered effective. It's inconsistent enforcement that Prioryman received the same ban, was not sanctioned for for starting and making multiple edits to this ANI thread, and when DC contributes he is then first warned and blocked.

Nobody Ent

15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think in FPas we have something of Colonel Cathcart. John lilburne (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment from ErrantX

Unfortunately I seem to have dropped the administrative ball on this. Apologies; yesterday was a awkward day for me. To give some background on this IBAN...

A little while ago trouble erupted at AN between these two editors - and after investigation it became clear that they simply could not leave each other alone. DC felt it was his role to police Prioryman's work and Prioryman couldn't seem to resist rising to DC's bait. After a fairly stressful effort I got fed up to the extent that I stopped trying to be accommodating to both of their demands and pushed an IBAN (partially at their request).

The whole point, I should add, was simply to get them to disengage and go their seperate ways. I'm a big believer in the idea that avoiding drama is generally the best way to go.

Following that IBAN, DC made this edit. Rather than re-escalate the drama I let it slide as a final shot fired in the war. Another admin disagreed (which is fine) and blocked DC. But fortunately the IBAN seemed to stick and the situation de-escalated. And just to put the record straight; the wording of the IBAN might have been a little lax, for which I apologise, but for the purposes of clarity I intended my talk page only to be used to discuss removing the IBAN or to raise violations.

Fast forward 6 weeks and DC opened a new thread on my talk page. In part following up on my undertaking to review Prioryman's sanctions (to those who mention this above; it was my understanding privacy concerns exist, so I asked Arbcom, privately, to look into resolving the matter). And in another part showing he had not stopped keeping an eye on Prioryman. I immediately removed the post to discourage drama and thought about it a little - my preference was simply to ignore the matter on the basis of a "first strike" (or whatever). Ideally Prioryman would have ignored the matter and that would be that.

But he couldn't; and what makes me feel he is uninterested in actually resolving this issue is that instead of asking me to take more pro-active action he sent me this and took the matter straight to Arbitration Enforcement (big escalation). Even at that stage I hoped it would de-escalate, but once this hit AN/I and Prioryman contacted a bunch of admins (I'm not sure to what purpose) things are clearly out of hand. The AFD links posted by someone else above are also compelling; if Prioryman is this concerned about being under DC's scrutiny I'd expect to see him take more care to avoid pages where DC is active.

What is unfortunate is this comment on 3rd May in which DC clearly misunderstands the point of the IBAN - which is to keep these two editors away from each other. I really had a {{facepalm}} moment reading that.

I'm not sure where to go from here; I'd be more compelled to agree with a block reduction for DC if he would undertake just to leave Prioryman alone, to ignore him and so forth. His recent postings seem entirely contrary to that. Equally it needs to be pressed on Prioryman that a critical aspect of resolving this is to ignore comments by DC about his editing - at least until such a point as they become widespread. I reiterate that had Prioryman undertaken to ignore DC's May 1 comment none of this would have happened and presumably both editors would have been happily having a stress free week.

I want to make one other comment which is that I'm in an awkward position here - I implemented the IBAN, but I don't want to be the sole arbitrator of it - I am lenient by nature and anyway one admin holding the keys to an administrative matter is bad practice. (it should be pointed out I also have recently interacted with DC on an unrelated matter, which clouds the issue further). The community needs to adopt this IBAN, or whatever other sanction, and deal firmly with these two. --Errant ^(chat!) 06:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that the admin who previously blocked DC, after what you called a parting shot above, was Future Perfect at Sunrise. (The block was made more than 12 hours after the edit in question, and was later undone by another admin.) User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is of course also in the list above, among the admins Prioryman contacted today, but he is also in the old arbitration case which I cited above, which includes a specific arbitration finding that Future Perfect at Sunrise had advance knowledge of Prioryman's actions (which led to his desysopping in that case). --JN466 06:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not had any private communication with Prioryman for years, and dragging up that old Arbcom case is pretty far-fetched (there wasn't even any wrongdoing implied in that finding). In this case, his message on my talk page was nothing more than the mandatory notification which he was obliged to give for mentioning me on ANI. Fut.Perf. ¤ 09:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I now recall that you had another sanction against Delicious carbuncle overturned at AE a little over a year ago; and I see that Courcelles commented, in the decision to overturn your sanction on procedural grounds, "The process on this stinks all the way around". Prioryman was on your talk page immediately prior to your (also overturned) block of Delicious carbuncle in March as well. It just doesn't look good. It makes you look like you are part of the struggle, rather than an impartial arbiter. Cheers. --JN466 15:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Analysis

Chronology: Ban enacted, excludes ErrantX talk page. DC posts on ErrantX talk page, is acknowledge/removed. About a day later, Prioryman starts this thread, violates ban. DC replies, also violates ban, is blocked (fine block). Comment: neither editor seems to notice the beam in their own eyes as they're so focused on the mote in the others. Proposal; new, improved ban. Either editor mentions the other anywhere on Wikipedia (publicly or via email) for any reason, block for escalating periods of time.

10:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a tweak indeed, but a slightly different one. Truth is that an interaction ban is unworkable if there isn't some opportunity for one party to complain if the other party breaks it. However, we need to channel such complaints in a better way. We know that ErrantX originally intended the exemption of his own talkpage to serve as such a venue. However, he is now saying that he wishes to be no longer alone responsible for administering the situation (quite reasonable), and we have seen that DC has twice misused this venue for something it was not intended for, i.e. for resuming and re-hashing the original dispute. So, my proposal is: replace ErrantX's original wording of the exemption "If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban)" with something along the lines of: "Appeals of this sanction, or complaints about breaches of it by the other party, may be directed to

WP:AN. In any such appeal or report, and in any follow-up discussion, the parties must restrict themselves to brief, matter-of-fact statements focussed exclusively on the resolution of the present situation, but remain otherwise bound to the original prohibition of referring to earlier perceived wrongdoings or otherwise rehashing their previous disagreements." Fut.Perf. ¤

10:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy with that wording, but suggest amending the last line to add the following wording (highlighted in bold), to prevent new topics of contention being raised: "... but remain otherwise bound to the original prohibition of referring to earlier perceived wrongdoings, rehashing their previous disagreements or bringing new complaints about matters unrelated to the operation of the interaction ban." Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason specifically my talk page was used is because noticeboards were a point of contention on the original issue - so it was an easy way to get it in place. As this isn't going to be resolved amicably, employing AN over my talk page is much better. If they both will now accept that then I think it is the way to go. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I accept it, but please see my comments below about practical steps that I think DC needs to take in order to prevent a recurrence of this episode. Prioryman (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman's proposed addition makes sense. --JN466 16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Truth is that an interaction ban is unworkable if there isn't some opportunity for one party to complain if the other party breaks it. It is from a

Nobody Ent

17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The solution is to take it to one's most trusted admin, off-wiki. ?Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots? 22:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What some secret hugger muggerings in dark corners, is that how it should be done? John lilburne (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That sentence does not compute. Try again. :) ?Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots? 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Could someone give me DC address? I take a lot photographs of bugs during the year, and I don't think I have a anything from the Carbuncle family. I also photograph a lot of historical things, and I'm guessing that DC probably live near to some sort of fortification, so that would be a double hit, hopefully they'll also be a law court in the vicinity too. John lilburne (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking DC

I note that DC is being encouraged by a couple of individuals to appeal his block again (having been refused once already). I don't object to this in principle but I do have some practical concerns which I would like to be addressed before any unblock is actioned:

1. He hasn't acknowledged that he was in any way at fault;
2. He still seems to think that the interaction ban allows him to monitor and report my edits, which was the cause of the original dispute;
3. He has given no commitment that he is going to do what he was supposed to do and leave me alone entirely.

I don't want to go through this kind of mess yet again and frankly, after two flagrant violations in only six weeks, I have no reason to trust DC to uphold his side of the interaction ban. So I'd like to request that if DC is unblocked, he should be required first to explicitly and publicly acknowledge that he recognises that he did not comply with the ban, that he is prohibited from raising any issue about me that is unrelated to the operation of the ban, that he will desist from monitoring or reporting my edits to see if they violate any policies or sanctions, and that he will permanently commit to not discussing me or raising issues about me (other than in relation to the operation of the ban) on-wiki, off-wiki and via email. If he won't commit to those things - all of which are required by the ban, and all of which I'm upholding on my side of it - then he is not committed to the goal of total disengagement and there is every likelihood that this episode will be repeated. I don't want that to happen and I'm sure all the people here whose patience has been taxed would prefer to avoid it too. Prioryman (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How the hell is this -possibly- acceptable, given the reaction ban? Or is blocking for such a flagrant abuse of restrictions "too much drama" now it's been done by one of your mates, Errant?101.118.15.254 (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — 101.118.15.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, random IP. Re Prioryman - yes, I agree with these points, and do not think DC should be unblocked until he gets his "eureka" moment (see my post above in the analysis section). With this said it's probably best if you walk away from it all right now. DC is currently blocked and I cannot imagine any admin unblocking at this point without a firm commitment to ignoring you in the future. There is little more you can productively contribute at this point to the thread without stirring the pot further. I'd take a break and go do something relaxing and therapeutic, either on-wiki or off. Moreschi (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I have nothing further to add anyway and I've already agreed to Fut Perf's refinement of the ban. Thanks (to you and others) for your efforts to resolve this issue. Prioryman (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The best way to handle an interaction ban violation is to take it to your most trusted admin, behind the scenes, and let them deal with it. ?Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots? 12:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Copied from DC's talk page:

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) --JN466 15:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Where a person reasonably believes that making a comment on an admin's talk page is proper, and the admin appears to also think it was reasonable, then the rest of ths contretemps is silly. Unblock, have some tea (or stout, depending on which you prefer) and defuse all of this balderdash. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've declined the latest unblock request. My reading of the situation is that he still doesn't see the problem in continuing to review the contributions of someone he has an interaction ban with. ?ereSpielChequers 00:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I wish you had left it to someone with a less obvious connection to Wiki UK. --JN466 13:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

He should be indef blocked until he sees the light.Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams. --JN466 13:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool story. Blocks exist to enforce sanctions, not punishment. By most accounts either DC doesnt "get it" or is not willing to abide by the sanction he willingly agreed to enter. If he would acknolwedge the he messed up and agreeed not to do it again, then the block should be removed now, otherwise an expiring block serves no puprose as he still thinks he is in the right and this issue could surface once again. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DC has agreed to stick to the strict interpretation of the interacton ban and should thus be unblocked. If he stays blocked, then the only thing he will be doing here during the next week is argue about his block, which is PM related issue, and thus the opposite of what most here want DC to do on Wikipedia. From DC's perspective (however wrong that may be), there is a difference between the terms of the interaction ban he originally agreed to and the strict interpretation he is asked to stick to now.

So, when he is asked to acknowledge that he made a mistake, he is going argue that he did nothing wrong because he didn't violate the terms of the agreement as he understood it at the time. To me this sounds like a silly irrelevant discussion, what matters is that similar problems won't happen again. Count Iblis (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DC needs to acknowledge that he abused the spirit of the IB by using ErrantX's talk page to bait PM, and in the future if he has an issue with PM to take it off-wiki per the suggestion made by BaseballBugs. His wiki-lawering/mall cop crap isnt helping. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In this whole issue I side with PM, but it is quite clear to me that the spirit of the agreement between DC and PM was different from the perspective of both. PM wanted to stop DC from following him, DC continues to have problems with some aspects of PMs editing. An agreement was made between the two to stop the negative aspects of their interaction. But both sides had different goals here. What matters now is that DC has agreed to stick to the letter of the new proposal, which will guarantee that the same thing cannot repeat itself.

Otherwise, at best after a few days of heated debates, you may get DC to acknowledge that if the spirit of the original agreement was meant to imply that he wasn't supposed to do what he did, then he violated the spirit of the original agreement, but he would the not agree that that was the spirit of the agreement as he understood it at the time. Would that be enough to get DC unblocked? I doubt it, because it would fall short of "DC pleading guilty" in the sense of admitting that he willfully violated the terms of the agreement.

So, I really don't see the point of such debates. If there is any doubt about what DC should now agree to, just write up some unambiguous text that doesn't need any second guessing as to what the "spirit" of that is, let DC say that he'll stick to that and then unblock DC. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Would someone else mind reviewing my decline of DC's second unblock request? Another editor (other than DC) has expressed concerns that I was entirely the wrong admin to administer this unblock request and while I don't consider myself involved with either party to this dispute, for the avoidance of doubt it would help if another admin reconsidered DC's second unblock request. ?ereSpielChequers 15:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  WereSpielChequers, not sure if you're asking for a review or for some action but, after scanning this entire report I don't think DeliciousCarbuncle should have been blocked in the first place. For one thing, monitoring edits is not the same thing as interacting with a user. And, second, IBAN explicitly allows the asking for clarifications and/or for the taking of some action against the ibanned editor. I think your decline reason was mistaken here (a rare one!) and, assuming that your intent on posting here at ANI was to allow another admin to overturn your decline, I'll do just that. (If you were merely seeking comment, feel free to restore the decline and the block.) --regentspark (comment) 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Unless, I am misreading this [29] DC has an odd focus for "much of his efforts" on Wikipedia: other editors. This could be a source of the problem, as the job requires focus on content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the focus is an odd one. Reeks of conspiracy theories and the like. However, given the circumstances, perhaps there is some hyperbole in the comment. Disclosure: I just unblocked DeliciousCarbuncle. Though I think I've seen the name before, I have had no prior interaction with that user and am noting his/her presence on wikipedia for the first time :) --regentspark (comment) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat uninvolved editor request

Whatever happens to Delicious Carbuncle at this point happens. It seems like he did violate the terms of the IBAN, per a very strict take on the close here.

DC got in trouble for asking ErrantX if he had done everything he said he was going to do in his close of the IBAN thread. Part 1 was 'Impose a customized IBAN on these two editors', Part 2 was "follow up with Arbcom in the next few days to see about listing Prioryman's active sanctions appropriately".

These two things don't seem explicitly connected, but its an awfully fine line. Part 1 was obviously done. Can someone please go ahead and check Part 2 so that it can be off the to-do list? This will also remove the incentive for any editor to continue to focus on it. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not good enough

Now that block editors are equally unblocked, rather than have a

17:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't look at (each other)! Shut your eyes! Don't look at (each other), no matter what happens! -- paraphrasing from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Maybe each of them could imagine the other is the Ark of the Covenant being opened and if they interact, their faces will melt. -- Avanu (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Per both party's agreements, the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom, but reporting the other editor for perceived violations on wiki is not permitted."

17:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A few follow-up requests for clarification:

1. DC has stated that he is monitoring my edits and has stated a wish to join an arbitration case or RfC/U (God knows on what pretext) against me. Is either activity permitted? Please make it explicitly clear whether this is compatible with the interaction ban.
2. What assurances have been given, on or off-wiki, on this matter, concerning compliance with the ban?
3. I suggest amending the last clause to "for reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor in connection with perceived violations of any restrictions, guideline or policy is not permitted."
4. Typo in the same line: "made by made", which I imagine is supposed to be "to be made".
5. I also suggest amending the end of the second sentence to: "at any venue, including user talk pages of third parties." Typo in the 3rd sentence, "then ban". Prioryman (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nobody's draft (although personally I would have preferred hypothetical future complaints/reports to be made in an on-wiki venue rather than per mail to an admin, but I can live with this version too.) I think the wording is otherwise clear enough. To Pm's questions: we have no control over what he reads or doesn't read, so trying to prohibit "monitoring" is probably futile. As for any exemption for potential participation in future Arbcom or RfCs, DC has said himself that he would have to ask Arbcom for that purpose, so basically that falls under the "appeal" category. I'd certainly hope Arbcom would not grant such an appeal, because if both of you stick to the restriction otherwise he couldn't possibly have any open business with you that would make his participation in such a process necessary, but of course he'd be free to ask for such an exemption via the appeals process. Fut.Perf. ¤ 17:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Per both party's your agreements the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue (to include any page on a website owned by The Wikimedia Foundation). If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom, but reporting the other editor for perceived violations is not permitted." I'm not aware of any assurances made -- but that is not the point. The point is to describe the ban with sufficient clarity that the involved editors understand the terms and such that, upon review, administrators will clearly know when a violation has occurred or not. Rather than list specific places than ban occurs -- complexity leads to loopholes -- I've simply defined "any" more clearly.

Wikipedia has no control of what happens off-wiki so I'm not including that in the ban. (If that's a roadblock, then someone else will have to finish the drafting because I'm not smart enough to actually write such a ban in a way that can actually be enforced.)

18:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Prioryman, how would anyone know if he's monitoring you or not? Unless he says he's doing it, no way to know, so it's irrelevant. RfC/U counts as commenting or interacting, obviously. Would you like to have an RfC/U done on yourself?
2. Each of you pick a contact admin that is willing and you like to deal with if you see a problem with violations of the ban. Agree to do whatever they say on the subject or get blocked. You won't contact anyone else other than your designated admin. Off-wiki, can't control, its a non-issue.

I feel the following revision may express the community sentiment and provide absolute clarity to both parties:

"Per both your agreements the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor in connection with any perceived violations of Wikipedia restrictions, guidelines or policies is not permitted. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom. To sum up, do not think about, mention, or obsess about anything to do with each other. Leave each other alone, and no one in the community should see any evidence that you acknowledge each other's existence."

How's that version? -- Avanu (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stick with discussing the single version, which I didn't actually write per se -- it was mostly a copy/paste of ErrantX's previous IBAN statement, DCs unblock request and RegentSparks' unblock statement (which I guess means I just COPYVIO three editors.)

Nobody Ent

18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Its essentially the same as yours, but I reordered your sentences to make it more in line with the escalation order. And then added the summation, which is an entirely optional addition, but I think it expresses the sentiment very clearly. -- Avanu (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Leave out the "to sum up" part, in particular "obsess"; the interaction ban is needed precisely because it's not possible for at least one of them to not obsess about the other. Count Iblis (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so:

Per mutual agreement of Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman, the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor in connection with any perceived violations of Wikipedia restrictions, guidelines or policies is not permitted. However, if either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the terms of the interaction ban, that editor will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom.

-- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion In the unlikely event if one of the editors wants to discuss the policy and it requires interaction from the other party, that request should be initiated by email to an administrator. At that point, should an administrator wish to get involved they would open a thread on their (the admins) talk page and both parties would be exempted from the IB in that limited scope. The thread should also be limited to the *policy* and not other disputes. The admin should attempt to keep the thread narrowly construed and close it as soon as possible. In addition, community block lengths should be added to this policy so each editor knows the consequences and will think twice before violating the IB. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it better if we let administrators use their judgement if contacted by either party. My goal here to make a simple definitive comprehensive ban statement; I have every confidence once the terms are understood both editors will follow it so discussion of penalties would be moot.

Nobody Ent

18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, didn't look that closely -- (probably fixes the copyvio problem!). Let's trim the tail as CI suggests and the opening phrase isn't essential, and any mention should be prohibited, which gets us:

"The community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor is not permitted. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom."

That work?

18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Change to "If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban or has a question regarding the ban". Leave no wiggle room whatsoever Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"The community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor is not permitted. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban or has a question regarding the ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom."

Corrected for clarity as suggested.

19:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to DC's not wishing to accept these terms and other editors editing my posts in violation of

Nobody Ent

02:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You all are making this too difficult. Just word it this way for both users and everything should be fine: "Until further notice, [user A] is restricted from commenting on, about, or to [user B] anywhere on Wikipedia." ?Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots? 02:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

DC has accepted those terms with that minor modification mostly because it makes sense that chasing him or Prioryman all over the various projects would be a hassle, and I'm inclined to agree. I don't know how it is a significant difference unless they edit a lot on the other projects, and if so, we can specify the project they edit on. I think if Prioryman agrees, we're done. Not sure what the big deal is. -- Avanu (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the only other possible point of intersection between DC and I is the Commons, where we're both active; but we've never crossed paths and there's never been any conflict between us there. I'm sure that if some issue or pretext does emerge the admins on the Commons can deal with it and be informed by the steps that have been taken here. The terms of the restrictions posted on my talk page seemed to be changing every 5 minutes at one point but now that they seem to have settled down, I'm happy to accept them as-is. Hopefully this time the restrictions will stick and there will be no more of this nonsense. Prioryman (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

With that said, both Prioryman and Delicious Carbuncle have agreed to the same set of text.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle&oldid=491052572#Ban_wording

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prioryman&oldid=491098774#Ban_wording

I hope the community can agree with their agreement and put this issue to bed now. -- Avanu (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

All you really need is for both of them to agree that the voluntary IBAN can be enforced as if the community had put it in place. That should do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)