And now we have an RFC, and what's more, an ArbCom case Options

[-DS-]

Requests for comment/Cirt

Who wants to bet on whether this will go anywhere or not?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will Beback has predictably attempted to get a BADSITES revival going here.

[carbuncle]

Will Beback has predictably attempted to get a BADSITES revival going here.

Will is being aided in his pursuit of WR by User:Prioryman.

I alerted a checkuser that it might be worth looking into the possibility that Prioryman was connected to a certain vanished user who was under editing restrictions relating to Scientology (among others), they replied to my email with "Please send chriso issues to funcen/arbcom. I am not privy to any deals or agreements that may exist. Sorry". I followed their advice, but I have yet to hear back from ArbCom even to acknowledge my email, let alone take any action. I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman.

[-DS-]

I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman.

This would seem to confirm that theory.

[MaliceAforethought]

I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman.

This would seem to confirm that theory.

Ach, you would think so, but turns out AC just covered it up.
-----------
From: lutefisk73 at (Chris Owen)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:01:05 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Blocked yet again by Avraham!

Would you mind please telling Avraham to stop blocking me? You reversed his
previous block of my IP address and he has now blocked my replacement
account again. Did nobody tell him not to do so?

Chris
-----------
From: (Avi)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:21:24 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh, well done


Obviously no one has informed me. I am copying arbcom on this e-mail. Also,
note that there is nothing in the logs that indicate whom you are a
sockpuppet of.

However, if I am contacted as the CU who blocked your last sockpuppet, and
told that it is crystal clear as to who you are, then the "vanishing" was
not properly completed on your part and the edits should be re-attributed.

Either way, I have sent a detailed analysis to ArbCom, and if they choose to
correct me, so be it. My job is solely to implement their will, after all,
although it *would* be helpful if they informed us maintenance workers
*of*that will
*prior* to us being called upon to uphold what we believe is the current
status.

If you had permission, then you have my apologies, and I will know for the
future that ArbCom's position has changed. Again, if directed by arbcom, I
will be happy to lift the block with a note saying that I was in error, and
leave an apology on your talk page. However, if by virtue of your editing
being obvious enough to others that you have reappeared you are in violation
of any agreement you have with arbcom and the vanishing privilege, I suggest
you discuss with arbcom the possibility of starting anew with some better
guidelines so as not to create more wikidrama.

--Avi


----
User:Avraham

pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key)
Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E
29F9


On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Prioryman <lutefisk73> wrote:

> Avraham, did nobody on the Arbcom tell you that they have allowed me to
> resume editing from a new account? Congratulations - you have just blown
> that account and compomised my anonymity yet again. Contact Cool Hand Luke,
> Risker or Roger Davies if you don't believe me. And check my IP address -
> you will see that CHL undid your block of it. Rather than referring me to
> the Arbcom, WTF didn't you check with them *first* before blocking me again?
>
> - Chris