Update: As predicted ChrisO (a.k.a Prioryman) had his climate change restrictions lifted.
With all of the slight of hand and shifting of accounts to hide one’s past at Wikipedia there is sometimes a need to keep a record of who’s who. For those who remember him, User:ChrisO chose to vanish rather than be topic banned by the Arbitration Committee in the Climate Change arbitration case.
There is some additional background on ChrisO on Wikipedia Review, which includes a reference to this sock puppet investigation against Vanished user 03.
So as we can see from the above information, it is widely recognized that User:ChrisO is now editing as User:Prioryman. User:Cla68 has documented some of the irregularities with respect to ChrisO having invoked the right to vanish here. To prevent deletion of this information I will reproduce it here:
Evidence presented by Cla68
Current word length: 290; diff count: 61 (limit: 50). Please reduce your evidence submission to fit within the appropriate limits.
- Prioryman was active in the Cirt RfC, especially in casting aspersions upon and bollocking other editors:                    
- He appears to have become involved after the dispute spilled-over into the DYK forum, where Prioryman was an active participant:       Here, Prioryman should have revealed his prior involvement in this subject area then accuses the other editor of having an ax to grind begins a campaign on behalf of Cirt    
- Prioryman then became involved with the Santorum neologism article:      
- Prioryman then attacked an essay Jayen and other editors wrote in response to Cirt’s editing of the Santorum article:   campaigning to get it deleted then changes mind after links to Cirt are hidden  (check edit summary)             Prioryman conducted an experiment which he said discredited the Wikibombing theory
- This, this and this appear to be false statements.
- Last year the Committee noted at ARBCC that ChrisO (Prioryman’s previous account) was sanctioned in four previous ArbCom cases, including being banned from Scientology related BLPs. ChrisO, on or around 30 August, invoked Right to Vanish (RtV). The Committee noted that ChrisO had invoked this right while sanctions were being considered, and topic-banned him from climate change articles, apparently making that the fifth ArbCom sanction that ChrisO has received.
- ChrisO started an alternate account, L’ecrivant, on 30 August, the same day he invoked RtV. Apparently, the Committee only found out after this abusive sock was blocked.
- This shows that ChrisO was operating his old account under a new name at the same time he was operating L’ecrivant. The account was subsequently blocked.
- The Prioryman account was started in November, and, for unknown reasons, was allowed to continue editing by the Committee See the log summary.
- When the request for this case was made, Prioryman appears to have lied again.
So here we have a user who has been sanctioned in 5 separate Arbcomm cases, who has abusively used sock puppets, and who is violating the clearly documented behavioral guideline and community norm that: Vanishing is not a way to start over with a fresh account. When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning.
Now for those not familiar with ChrisO he was firmly entrenched in the AGW alarmist camp and loosely affiliated with “the group who cannot be named,” or TGWCBN for short.
ChrisO seeks to have his Climate Ban lifted!
So with the above well understood we can now see that fresh on the heels of Cla68’s request to have his topic ban lifted having been denied the user formerly known as User:ChrisO is making his own similar request.
If the arbitrator’s initial comments are any indication he can look forward to a swift and complete lifting of his sanctions:
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I will instruct the clerks to keep a close eye on this request, as Prioryman states in his request, folks who under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request. I am neutral, leaning oppose on the request, but I’m willing to listen to comments either way before I make a formal “decision” on which way I’d go. SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment we’ve used audited content as an indicator for lifting of topic bans, so a Good Article is a good notch in one’s belt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Willing to consider this; if things don’t go well, the existing general sanctions would probably be sufficient to address issues. Risker (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would support a motion to vacate Prioryman’s topic ban. AGK [•] 13:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I have no particular problem with lifting either this or the other extant historical sanction, which seem to me to be more trouble and more drama-provoking than they’re worth. It is not as if this editor will escape scrutiny in either area so if the event that there are fresh problems in either topic area, they can be handled perfectly well by discretionary sanctions. Roger Davies talk 14:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who is under sanctions in this area is banned from commenting on this request? That’s a new one on me. Typically dispute resolution discussions are exempt from such bans. I guess when there are climate change biases to be shored up those norms are no longer in play.
We’ll keep an eye on this case as part of our on-going efforts to show how the bias is being maintained, but the outcome in this case is pretty much a lock. He will have his sanctions lifted, as will anyone who supports the climate change alarmist views. I think people can see the pattern emerging in these cases.