Jump to content

User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/Oct

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mentoring status

I checked the archived thread on the mentoring proposal but it seems to have ended inconclusively. If you care to comment... Did you have private followups, or is it still open? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dweller offered mentorship. I asked what this would involve, and haven't yet received a response. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 07:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I'm suggesting that I restrict you to certain kinds of editing, while you engage with me regarding some of the issues that have emerged surrounding your editing. As you progress, the restrictions will gradually be lifted. The idea of the restrictions is to enable us to concentrate on the issues without the distraction of new complaints about you, here or at noticeboards. If I feel it's going nowhere because of my shortcomings or because you're not responding suitably, I'll go back to AN and say I failed. --Dweller (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
If you can propose some specific restrictions then I'd be able to comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we'd need to start with very wide-ranging ones. Don't edit anything in projectspace. Don't nominate anything for deletion by any means of doing so. Don't edit anything reasonably connected to Dr Who. Don't write any whole words in edit summaries. Basically trying to remove you from potential conflicts - we've a lot of work to do. I wouldn't expect the restrictions to be in place long. Feel free to discuss this with User:Bus stop, whom I mentored similarly. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, my memory is faulty. It was you I mentored like this. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't edit anything in projectspace. Absolutely not agreed. Don't nominate anything for deletion by any means of doing so. Absolutely not agreed. Don't edit anything reasonably connected to Dr Who. Absolutely not agreed. Don't write any whole words in edit summaries. How is that even conducive to collabroative editing?!
I'm sorry – those restrictions would basically remove my ability to edit Wikipedia at all, since those are my normal areas of interest/activity. So I think this proposed mentorship won't work. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 09:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you've not read my proposal very carefully. And I think that your tone is entirely wrong, which has seriously damaged my faith in my ability to help you. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Not only have I read your proposal, but I've quoted what I consider to be the salient parts of it. You proposed four restrictions: Don't edit anything in projectspace. Don't nominate anything for deletion by any means of doing so. Don't edit anything reasonably connected to Dr Who. Don't write any whole words in edit summaries. That is what you wrote. I read it carefully. And I said that I am not prepared to accept any of those restrictions. Perhaps you could clarify to me which passage of your proposal you think I've misinterpreted? ╟─TreasuryTag►contemnor─╢ 10:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
"I wouldn't expect the restrictions to be in place long".
I also think you should reflect on the fact that the entire purpose of this mentoring is to ensure you are able to continue editing Wikipedia. Comments like "How is that even conducive to collabroative editing?! I'm sorry – those restrictions would basically remove my ability to edit Wikipedia at all" are not only sardonically biting the hand that's trying very hard to feed you, they also demonstrate that you don't understand that a) a significant number of editors feel you don't edit collaboratively and b) you shouldn't be allowed to edit part or whole of Wikipedia ever again. I'd very much like to tackle a and b so that they are no longer issues, but it seems you don't perceive them to be issues... which, as I say, makes me feel like I'm wating my time. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I know you said they wouldn't be in place long ('probably') – I don't see how my initial reply suggested I hadn't read that passage. My point was, and is, that those restrictions would prevent me from editing any Wikipedia page I would edit in an average week, and frankly, the whole-words-in-edit-summaries thing is just bizarre. I'm afraid that I simply will not accept those restrictions. If you feel able to suggest a compromise, I'm happy to consider it. If not, I guess I'll just have to 'take my chances' without a mentor. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Bizarre"?!? Seven different editors (seven!) mentioned your problematic use of edit summaries at your editor review. Your attitude (I absolutely refuse, I absolutely refuse and while I'm absolutely refusing I'll insult your a couple of your suggestions) is not of one who is looking to compromise. I refuse to waste any more time on this. I'll post at AN that I've failed. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, using no whole words in edit-summaries is bizarre. So I guess that re movi ng unccptbl mtrl fr om thi s p a ge would be OK on that basis...? I have repeatedly pointed out that your proposals would effectively prevent me from editing Wikipedia at all. Making such a proposal is not the attitude of someone interested in compromising. I am sorry that you feel you are wasting your time; you've always been helpful to me in the past and I hope we can work together amicably in the future. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that senseless aggressive pedantry of the first two sentences of your reply just really sadden me. I wish you'd put your undoubted intelligence to more sensible and collegiate use - like the last sentence. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

OK; if you want less senseless pedantry then how about this: do you really think it is better for me to go around Wikipedia editing, making changes etc. and not including any explanation whatsoever in the edit-summary? Because it would undoubtedly be easier for me not to bother typing, "original research," or, "unreferenced," or whatever. I do it as a courtesy, as per WP:ES, but if you're saying it would be advisable not to do that then I may as well not bother. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 10:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
See this and replace "talk page edits" with "edit summaries". --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's quite different to "no whole words in edit-summaries" – ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). Apologies for jumping in uninvited again. I haven't been following this closely, so this suggestion might be at best redundant and at worst a very bad comment. I take full responsibility for this comment and for any repercussions about it. In my opinion:
* TT's problems are about Dr Who related articles
* TT is otherwise a very fine editor indeed
* Rather than focusing on the problem, lets look for a solution
* I suggest that if TT is un-indef'd, like the processes for problematic AfD-ers or similar in my jurisdiction, TT must ask for the opinion of an Admin or a trusted user before making any Dr Who related article edits whatsoever.
And, hey, TT: Articles you might like to edit, from Shirt58Bot - Lawyers bodkin - --Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
As I've said, Doctor Who is my main field of editing, so it would be a serious and almost absolute impediment for me to have to ask and wait for permission before each individual edit. So I will not accept such a restriction; sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 12:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Hi TreasuryTag, I've seen that wherever you've signed your username, the contributions link text changes to something different each time. Can you tell me how this is done? Rcsprinter (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now discovered User:TreasuryTag/sig, so you can ignore me if you want. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On the edit restriction discussion...

The administrators who close community proposals understand the closure policy, including the higher weight given to coherent arguments rather than just counting heads for/against. While you are currently correctly stating policy, you're also badgering those who are supporting the proposal. That type of badgering behavior has a very short tolerance limit, particularly on AN discussions, and also is certainly not helping your case. If you can avoid shooting your own cause in the foot, I would appreciate it. My interpretation of the situation is that either an admin or the community are going to indef you if you don't cooperate with something here that keeps you out of trouble. If that's not a mentorship situation, this topic ban is the only thing I can think of that will work. If you want to force the issue and get indef blocked, it would be easier for you to just stop editing, rather than cause a blowup and be forced out. I believe that would be a waste of your ability and interest, and I hope you chose not to go down that road. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was 'badgering' (as you call it) more for the education of the editors who were engaging in WP:VOTE-violating behaviour, since I charitably assumed that they were not aware of that policy and were not deliberately flouting it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 07:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Shutting Out the Italians?

Are you that sure that as a non-admin, and considering that you're up for yet another topic ban on AN, that you should be closing a thread that could potentially affect millions of Italian WP editors? Why not let an admin in good standing close it? Are you in a position right now to be closing unresolved threads on AN/I - I, as a non-admin in good standing, wouldn't think of closing that thread. Doc talk 08:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not an incident, it doesn't affect millions of Italian WP editors because we don't have millions of Italian WP editors, and it's not an incident. Bye. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 09:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess you're right. I liked the way the other guy closed it better though - jus' sayin'. Good luck with your other issues: I am truly neutral when it comes to you and will have no part in any vote for or against any topic ban. Cheers, and sorry if I came off a little "gruff" :> Doc talk 09:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Indefinitely blocked

This is fairly disappointing.

HJ Mitchell stuck his neck out for you and negotiated your return to editing. Since that time, you've returned to the combative behaviour that lead to your block and violated the conditions of your unblock by alleging misconduct in edit summaries. I've placed an indefinite block on your account and will be noting the same at WP:AN (you may make a statement here to be copied over).

I believe you have exhausted the community's patience, however I give leave in advance for another administrator to lift or modify this block if they feel it is no longer necessary or was made in error. –xenotalk 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 21:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

TreasuryTag/Archives/2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well, this is getting a little silly. I seem to have been indeffed for objecting to this unreferenced content; for describing this as POINTy; for taking this as a personal attack; and for... oh no. That seems to be it.
This is ridiculous. I know that most of the community's out to get me permablocked for almost any excuse at the moment, but really, is this the best excuse an admin could come up with?
One final note: if Xeno's pretext for the block is that I violated the terms of my unblock agreement with HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), then I believe that there is a scale of block-lengths to be adhered to?

Decline reason:

Your unblock request doesn't say anything about how you plan to deal with all the meaningful worries over your longstanding combative behaviour. You're welcome to post another unblock request which does so. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

In applying the blocking policy, administrators are not bound by other administrators' suggested block length and escalation schedules. It was my opinion that a time-limited block would not have the desired preventative effect (as indicated by the fact that TreasuryTag simply waited out his last block, updated his scoreboard, and then returned to the pretty much the same behaviour that lead to the block). –xenotalk 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice avoidance of the second person. But anyway... OK. So, if we accept what you just said, it nullifies the third paragraph of my three-paragraph unblock request. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I am fine with the block being modified to a time-limited one at the discretion of attending administrators. I would only ask that they carefully consider whether such a modification would have the necessary preventative effect. –xenotalk 21:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You seriously came onto IRC, spammed a stalkword and that you should be unblocked, left no justification for the unblock, and left 1 second later? Are you aware of how bad this makes you look? If you want to discuss the block, then discuss it. Otherwise, stop wasting editors' time. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[removed a series of comments related to release of an unauthorized irc transcript TT, please do not re-add what I've removed here.] A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You do know that public logging of #wikipedia, which includes public publishing of excerpts from #wikipedia, is prohibited, right? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, I've just checked and you're quite right! I guess someone had better block me then... ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 21:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll cross it out then. Does that satisfy your pointless requirement? ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your best bet at this point is to consider WP:OFFER. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I have to agree with Xeno and Beeblebrox. TT, I stuck my neck out to get you unblocked, and under some pretty liberal conditions at that, but since then, you've more-or-less continued doing exactly what got you indef'd in the first place. Is it, therefore, any surprise that you find yourself with yet another indef block? I think it's fair to say that you've exhausted the community's patience, and have paid little attention to the conditions of your unblocking except to dictate how long other admins may block you for. I fully endorse this block, and if I was more active, I would have done the same thing myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

This is fairly disappointing.

HJ Mitchell stuck his neck out for you and negotiated your return to editing. Since that time, you've returned to the combative behaviour that lead to your block and violated the conditions of your unblock by alleging misconduct in edit summaries. I've placed an indefinite block on your account and will be noting the same at WP:AN (you may make a statement here to be copied over).

I believe you have exhausted the community's patience, however I give leave in advance for another administrator to lift or modify this block if they feel it is no longer necessary or was made in error. –xenotalk 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 21:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

TreasuryTag/Archives/2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well, this is getting a little silly. I seem to have been indeffed for objecting to this unreferenced content; for describing this as POINTy; for taking this as a personal attack; and for... oh no. That seems to be it.
This is ridiculous. I know that most of the community's out to get me permablocked for almost any excuse at the moment, but really, is this the best excuse an admin could come up with?
One final note: if Xeno's pretext for the block is that I violated the terms of my unblock agreement with HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), then I believe that there is a scale of block-lengths to be adhered to?

Decline reason:

Your unblock request doesn't say anything about how you plan to deal with all the meaningful worries over your longstanding combative behaviour. You're welcome to post another unblock request which does so. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

In applying the blocking policy, administrators are not bound by other administrators' suggested block length and escalation schedules. It was my opinion that a time-limited block would not have the desired preventative effect (as indicated by the fact that TreasuryTag simply waited out his last block, updated his scoreboard, and then returned to the pretty much the same behaviour that lead to the block). –xenotalk 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice avoidance of the second person. But anyway... OK. So, if we accept what you just said, it nullifies the third paragraph of my three-paragraph unblock request. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I am fine with the block being modified to a time-limited one at the discretion of attending administrators. I would only ask that they carefully consider whether such a modification would have the necessary preventative effect. –xenotalk 21:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You seriously came onto IRC, spammed a stalkword and that you should be unblocked, left no justification for the unblock, and left 1 second later? Are you aware of how bad this makes you look? If you want to discuss the block, then discuss it. Otherwise, stop wasting editors' time. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[removed a series of comments related to release of an unauthorized irc transcript TT, please do not re-add what I've removed here.] A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You do know that public logging of #wikipedia, which includes public publishing of excerpts from #wikipedia, is prohibited, right? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, I've just checked and you're quite right! I guess someone had better block me then... ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 21:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll cross it out then. Does that satisfy your pointless requirement? ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your best bet at this point is to consider WP:OFFER. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I have to agree with Xeno and Beeblebrox. TT, I stuck my neck out to get you unblocked, and under some pretty liberal conditions at that, but since then, you've more-or-less continued doing exactly what got you indef'd in the first place. Is it, therefore, any surprise that you find yourself with yet another indef block? I think it's fair to say that you've exhausted the community's patience, and have paid little attention to the conditions of your unblocking except to dictate how long other admins may block you for. I fully endorse this block, and if I was more active, I would have done the same thing myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous redirect

Why have you made [1] ridiculous redirect? It is totally unrelated! Pass a Method talk 16:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

TT was enforcing the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 5#Edit summary → Help:Edit summary. Favonian (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The RFD did not seem to have too much support. Is it okay if i revert TT? Pass a Method talk 17:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Do I mind if you unilaterally overturn the consensus from an RfD? Yes. I do. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer if you didn't. There's a helpful hatnote at the top of wiki currently for anyone looking for Help:Edit summary. 28bytes (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I second that. Cross-namespace redirects from article space should be avoided. Favonian (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflicts) One problem is that reverting TreasuryTag in this instance would restore a "cross-namespace redirect" (from "article space" to "help space"). Such redirects might sometimes be useful, especially to new editors who haven't yet learned the nuances of spaces and therefore will type X when they mean Wikipedia:X or Help:X, are nonetheless frowned upon. Instead, if you think there should be a better redirect target, you should probably discuss it somewhere. I'm not sure where the best "somewhere" would be, but I am pretty sure it isn't here. (And post edit conflict, 28bytes may be right that it should just be left alone.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

Hi TT. I hope you can see that there is a large portion of the community who have considered you a lost cause, and at the moment, I doubt there is any administrator willing to unblock you or even transfer the block to one with a timescale. However, although it has not yet been successful, I'm willing to drop you a lifeline - through mentorship. I would tentatively agree to either mentoring you myself or as part of a team (volunteers would be appreciated). I would personally prefer a team, as I know there are areas that the community believe need improvement which I have less experience in, combined with my availability (or lack thereof).

However, if you want to go down this route, you will need to agree to temporary measures which will hamper your work on Wikipedia. We can discuss those measures further, but an "absolutely disagree" attitude from you will not be condusive. For now, I'll let you think about it - perhaps take your chances through other means, you may not need the offer. My offer will remain open either way, if you wish to discuss it further, I'm happy to discuss it here or by email. Good luck. WormTT · (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Along with Worm, I'd also like to offer mentorship, if the both of you will have me. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Indefinitely blocked

This is fairly disappointing.

HJ Mitchell stuck his neck out for you and negotiated your return to editing. Since that time, you've returned to the combative behaviour that lead to your block and violated the conditions of your unblock by alleging misconduct in edit summaries. I've placed an indefinite block on your account and will be noting the same at WP:AN (you may make a statement here to be copied over).

I believe you have exhausted the community's patience, however I give leave in advance for another administrator to lift or modify this block if they feel it is no longer necessary or was made in error. –xenotalk 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 21:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

TreasuryTag/Archives/2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well, this is getting a little silly. I seem to have been indeffed for objecting to this unreferenced content; for describing this as POINTy; for taking this as a personal attack; and for... oh no. That seems to be it.
This is ridiculous. I know that most of the community's out to get me permablocked for almost any excuse at the moment, but really, is this the best excuse an admin could come up with?
One final note: if Xeno's pretext for the block is that I violated the terms of my unblock agreement with HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), then I believe that there is a scale of block-lengths to be adhered to?

Decline reason:

Your unblock request doesn't say anything about how you plan to deal with all the meaningful worries over your longstanding combative behaviour. You're welcome to post another unblock request which does so. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

In applying the blocking policy, administrators are not bound by other administrators' suggested block length and escalation schedules. It was my opinion that a time-limited block would not have the desired preventative effect (as indicated by the fact that TreasuryTag simply waited out his last block, updated his scoreboard, and then returned to the pretty much the same behaviour that lead to the block). –xenotalk 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice avoidance of the second person. But anyway... OK. So, if we accept what you just said, it nullifies the third paragraph of my three-paragraph unblock request. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I am fine with the block being modified to a time-limited one at the discretion of attending administrators. I would only ask that they carefully consider whether such a modification would have the necessary preventative effect. –xenotalk 21:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You seriously came onto IRC, spammed a stalkword and that you should be unblocked, left no justification for the unblock, and left 1 second later? Are you aware of how bad this makes you look? If you want to discuss the block, then discuss it. Otherwise, stop wasting editors' time. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[removed a series of comments related to release of an unauthorized irc transcript TT, please do not re-add what I've removed here.] A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You do know that public logging of #wikipedia, which includes public publishing of excerpts from #wikipedia, is prohibited, right? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, I've just checked and you're quite right! I guess someone had better block me then... ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 21:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll cross it out then. Does that satisfy your pointless requirement? ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your best bet at this point is to consider WP:OFFER. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I have to agree with Xeno and Beeblebrox. TT, I stuck my neck out to get you unblocked, and under some pretty liberal conditions at that, but since then, you've more-or-less continued doing exactly what got you indef'd in the first place. Is it, therefore, any surprise that you find yourself with yet another indef block? I think it's fair to say that you've exhausted the community's patience, and have paid little attention to the conditions of your unblocking except to dictate how long other admins may block you for. I fully endorse this block, and if I was more active, I would have done the same thing myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Token comment to prevent archival. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 05:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding unblocking

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WormTT · (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Please could someone copy over the following message—I'd like to thank Fastily (talk · contribs) and especially Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) for putting such dedicated work into the negotiation and agreement of the proposed mentorship conditions. I would like to point out that, should I stick to those conditions, plus the topic-ban, it will be literally impossible for me to cause any of the troubles that others have accused me of. And if I don't stick to them, I'm sure that there are plenty of admins around who will be more than happy to take the appropriate action. I would therefore support the proposal (obviously) and ask others to extend me the credit and the benefit of the doubt by doing the same. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Unblock request declined

I am sorry to report that I have closed the unblock request as unsuccessful. The discussion may be reviewed at this link. The indefinite block is still "indefinite", not "permanent". Several of the editors have expressed what they would like to see in a future unblock request, most notably an acknowledgement of your own role when the block was imposed in the first place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Banned?

Not that it's much of my business but I am curious about the status of TT. Is he banned from editing Wikipedia or is he under an indefinite block as there is no administrator or community consensus to unblock him? I know there isn't much technical difference between the two (in regards to his ability to edit) but I think the nuance is important. 140.247.141.149 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In his edit summary, AGK referred to WP:CBAN 2, which states Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
TT is not on the list that the banned template links to. This could be confusing to some. Doc talk 01:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It is an idefinite block, not a formal siteban. However the block was upheld by consensus and no admin seems willing to reverse it, a situation sometimes described as de facto ban. Short answer: if TT does the WP:OFFER thing he may have a chance to return later, but for the moment the community has decided that he needs some time away from the project and the project needs some time away from him. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I somehow missed Sarek's remarks when writing that. That would seem to be the reason his user page is marked as banned. It really doesn't make a difference so long as he does not resort to socking, which to my knowledge he never has.my mistake [2] but it has been a very long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
That block-description is actually mistaken/misleading as I did not engage in sockpuppetry (or can you provide an example of me doing so?) ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 07:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Should he be added to the list? 140.247.141.149 (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that adding him to the list would hurt, but I think it would just make more sense to just link to the AN thread as soon as it gets archived. The tree of events is relatively easy to follow from that. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I did not express a view on the ANI discussion about TreasuryTag, and I do not hold a view now, but my take on the situation is, as elucidated by Beeblebrox, that TT is indefinitely community-banned (see WP:CBAN). As I understand it, the ban is indefinite, but we expect that it will not be permanent. However, our convention is that the userspace of banned users should contain nothing more than notices, like {{Banned user}}, and discussion about the ban, and usually a link to the talk page archives for ease of use; see WP:CBAN#User pages. Reasonably, this would include aesthetic things like the green appearance of this talk page. Certainly, it would include the pontificating at the top of the page (though it refers to, it also constitutes, pontificating). I was asked to give an explanation before restoring this page to the 'bare-bones' version, and, having done so, have restored the talk page to its minimal presentation. Hope this is okay with Eraserhead, Andy, and the others. To be clear, I'm not blindly enforcing the minutiae of policy, but rather trying to instil some semblance of a fresh-start to TT's talk page: if we're letting him keep his userspace as before, then we might as well unblock him too…

    On another note, TreasuryTag's remark below that Beeblebrox has miscommunicated TT's ostensibly history of socking is rather worrying. Although I would prefer that we honour the spirit of the ban discussion and let this matter rest for longer than a day, I still think that any discussion should be accurate, lest we cause TT to have to check into Wikipedia repeatedly - and not go on the break we are trying to enforce. AGK [•] 15:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

    The page you've linked to states, "Banned editors' user pages may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages." You don't seem to have done this. You simply appear to have removed most of the page's content without adding any either a block notice or a link to the relevant AN/ANI threads.
    If we're letting him keep his userspace as before, then we might as well unblock him too... I expect you actually know quite how stupid a comment that is, and I would be interested to know if you can identify a policy basis for that assertion? It seems a pointlessly punitive and humiliating stance to take to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 16:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    This discussion does not include you. You're banned, and should not be using your user talk page. AGK [•] 20:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    (a) That's just needlessly rude, and you know it.
    (b) I don't notice any other editors, admins or plebs such as myself, objecting to my joining in this conversation. Indeed, Floquenbeam explicitly asked me to: "TT, would that be acceptable to you?" In fact, you seem to be the only person trying to pursue me by blanking my talkpage and telling me to shut up. Could I suggest that you take the hint from everyone else's attitude to these issues and back off?
    (c) Do you have an answer to my question above? If we're letting him keep his userspace as before, then we might as well unblock him too... I expect you actually know quite how stupid a comment that is, and I would be interested to know if you can identify a policy basis for that assertion? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 20:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    You lost my interest, and the right to expect me to be polite, when you said of my comment that you "expect you actually know quite how stupid a comment that is". AGK [•] 21:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    If you mean that I lost the right to expect = predict you to be polite, please rest assured that I expected = predicted nothing of the sort. Let us not forget that the remark I labelled 'stupid' was, "If we're letting him keep his userspace as before, then we might as well unblock him too..."
    I think it was a perfectly fair label. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 21:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    I did not expect you to reform after a mere few weeks, but I also did not expect you to so flagrantly exhibit to the community the type of behaviour that led to your ban in the first place. AGK [•] 21:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    I'm sorry: I literally cannot think of a word other than 'stupid' that adequately describes the obtuse, disingenuous, illogical and nonsensical nature of the comment in question. Let us not forget that the remark I labelled 'stupid' was, "If we're letting him keep his userspace as before, then we might as well unblock him too..." If you have any suggestions for epithets other than 'stupid', I will gladly consider them. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 21:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for notifying me of the noticeboard thread you started about me, AGK. My comment is as follows: The fact that I am "engaging in discussion" is scarcely surprising given that Floquenbeam has explicitly invited me to do so, and AGK's remark, "If we're letting him keep his userspace as before, then we might as well unblock him too..." is so ludicrous that I'm genuinely surprised nobody else has observed this too. I don't think there's a very good reason to revoke my talkpage access, and if AGK could stop poking me/interfering with my userspace despite multiple editors asking him to stop, there will be no problem at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I wonder if a compromise is possible here (and on the user page), instead of dragging this out even more. TT is a long term editor that (IMHO) has caused significant disruption, and also (not just IMHO) significant benefit to the encyclopedia. This is kind of a special case; his situation is unlike almost all "banned editors" I can think of. When I "voted" against the as-written mentoring proposal at ANI, I didn't intend it as a vote for banning, tho I suppose I can understand how that can be the result. But I wonder if it would be possible to simply show TT some respect, in deference to his useful contribs, while keeping the "ban" in place because of the disruption. Perhaps keeping the pages formatted as he had them, but with the blocked/banned notice at the top? See mockup here. TT, would that be acceptable to you? AGK? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    Well, as you might expect, I'm opposed to keeping the ban in place, but basically acceptable, yeah. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 16:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that failed community discussion = ban is part of the equation that is often forgotten. I do not see this case as being banned either - however, I would assume that if you come back in a month (as opposed to following WP:OFFER a little closer) the sentiments might change (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure. The issue of his pontificating talk page is now more of a distraction than something useful, what with three reversions and several paragraphs of discussion. I don't agree that TreasuryTag should be included in this discussion - he is banned - but that is acceptable to me. AGK [•] 20:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Question It seems to me that lacking consensus to unblock is not the same as consensus to ban. I realize that the CBAN policy says that it is the same, but I think that it is in truth an indefinite block and not a ban. Banning would (I hope) require formal community consensus in the form of an AN discussion or RfC/U or similar conversation. I know this is all mostly subtle nuances but I also think it's important to be accurate. TT's block notice might say "Indefinitely blocked due to lack of community consensus to unblock" instead of "banning", simply as there hasn't been a consensus taken to actually ban him. Thoughts? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to WP:AN thread—please copy over

 Done (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The above is a perfect example of where guestbooks in signatures are a reaaaaalllly bad thing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Banned

TreasuryTag is banned under WP:CBAN. He made an appeal to WP:BASC which was turned down. WP:OFFER applies - he may contact WP:BASC again in six months to request a review. Banned users may not edit their own talkpage - they are banned from the project. Talkpage access has therefore been revoked. I'll leave it to others to decide what to do with this page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. I had not know that one could be banned without undergoing process by ArbCom or the community. I am not necessarily disagreeing with this, but it seems odd that one can have their ban appeal rejected without formally being banned. I guess, however, since TT has appealed this to BASC then he has accepted the ban. Is the request for ban review available for review? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:CBAN. TT was banned by a community process. The ban can be reviewed after 6 months either by BASC or by the community.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand. I guess Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" makes it clear, tho I have to admit I am uncomfortable with the lack of nuance between "indef blocked due to lack of consensus to unblock" and a formal banning, but in the end they are the same. For the record I agree with the block/ban, but am just a nut when it comes to nuance. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
You are indeed fond of the word "nuance" ;P Doc talk 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/Oct&oldid=1086011815"