User talk:TreasuryTag

My pontificality of prelates

Indef block

I have indef blocked you for violating your edit restrictions. You were indef blocked a month ago, but unblocked with restrictions. One of them was "A prohibition on redirecting or tagging for speedy or proposed deletion any article related to Doctor Who. You may still use AfD, but are cautioned against nominating articles that have little realistic chance of being deleted." However, the second article you AfD'ed since your unblock was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who), which ended in speedy keep (or snow keep, if you prefer). I don't see how it is useful to let you continue editing here if you can't even use the caution wanted from you in your editing restrictions. A complete Dr. Who related ban was perhaps an option instead of an indef block, but considering that the other two concluded AfD nominations since your block (1, 2 both ended in speede/snow keep as well, I can't see much use for such a topic ban either. Fram (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have raised this block for discussion at WP:ANI#TreasuryTag indef blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

I assume you mean WP:AN#TreasuryTag indef blocked. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 10:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sorry about that. Fram (talk) 10:13, 26 September 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 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is absurd. How is it that I can be blocked for initiating an AfD which closed as a keep? (Not to mention the fact that this whole episode took place 4 days ago and no other admin in that time has sought to block me, including HJ Mitchell – who formulated the unblock conditions – and he was specifically notified of the incident by me.) This just seems a little bizarre.

Decline reason:

Per discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 26 September 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.

"How is it that I can be blocked for initiating an AfD which closed as a keep?" Strange logic. It would be hard to block you for starting an AfD which closed as delete. However, there is no reason why you can't be blocked for starting AfD's which close as "speedy keep". Note also that your unblock restrictions were visible from 2 to 5 september 2011 only, and were then archived, making them basically unknown for most admins. If I had known of your editing restrictions before, I would have blocked you a few days ago, not just now. Fram (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange logic. Not really. Lawyers who sue someone and then lose in court aren't usually sanctioned. Politicians who stand for election and don't win are rarely imprisoned. Customers who make complaints to their local trading standards authority and fail to have that complaint upheld aren't often punished.
Tens of AfDs are started every day. A large number of them close as 'keep'. Most of the time, the nominators aren't blocked. Therefore, my logic in the statement, "How is it that I can be blocked for initiating an AfD which closed as a keep?" is not strange. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actualy the analogy is not correct as US law allows for sanctions for frivolous litigation. Also - from your previous history - were well aware that certain AFDs would not lead to a deletion but only to drama. Repeating that behaviour is clearly disruptive. Agathoclea (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Response to this post at WP:AN—the edit highlighted by Agathoclea (talk · contribs) was indeed a violation of the unblock conditions. However, it was a genuine mistake which I reported to the unblocking admin as soon as I noticed it. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC) (copied to AN Fram (talk) 10:56, 26 September 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 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've just remembered something: I've been blocked for violating the agreement here – but that agreement also stipulates that, "Violation of these restrictions will lead to blocks of escalating duration: starting with one week..." Therefore, I am unclear why I have been blocked indefinitely for a first (and debateable) infraction. Furthermore, there seems to be significant consensus at WP:AN that an indefinite block was too lengthy.

Decline reason:

Block reduced to one week per original terms, as noted above. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 26 September 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.

Thank you, Sarek (and I suggest you put those words in an album because they're unlikely to be repeated...) – and I'd just like to say for the record that I think it was either reprehensibly sloppy of Fram (talk · contribs) to overlook the "escalating blocks" clause in the terms of unblock which they obviously read, or deliberately deceptive of them to ignore it. Neither scenario is impressive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 16:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that, if anything, a one-week block is appropriate. I don't see why we should have an article on the Christmas special in September personally, but I don't know if it had any realistic chance of being deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  I have no problem with a one week block. Note however that you are bound by editing restrictions you agreed to, I am not bound by any block lengths included by HJ Mitchell in those restrictions. You are restricted, I am not. Anyway, I gave the block to the community for discussion, and the result of a one week block is fine by me. The more important issue is how you will act afterwards, and whether you have any intention of following these restrictions and staying out of trouble. Even in your unblock request, you debate whether you infracted upon your restriction, thereby ignoring the ProD highlighted by Agatoclea in the discussion as well. Fram (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  You are bound by editing restrictions you agreed to, I am not bound by any block lengths included. Oh, what rampant Wikilawyering. I'm actually shocked! Either you take the view (a) that the unblock conditions are simply an agreement between HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and myself, binding only on ourselves, or (b) that they have a more general application and should be respected by the Wikipedia community, broadly construed. If your stance is the former, then you shouldn't have blocked me for violating them because only HJ could. That would, of course, be ridiculous. But if you take the latter position, then you should accept the whole unblocking agreement rather than just cherrypicking the bits that suit your agenda and ignoring the rest.
  Even in your unblock request, you debate whether you infracted upon your restriction, thereby ignoring the ProD highlighted by Agatoclea in the discussion as well. I ignored that (accidental) violation of the restrictions because that was not the reason for your block. You highlighted one particular incident as the infraction. I stated (and maintain) that it was not an infraction.
  In general, your behaviour with regard to this episode has been reprehensible. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 21:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  I think it is reasonable to follow the block suggestions on both sides - as they are part of the deal made - and otherwise we undermine what other admins have agreed. I would consider it extremely bad form if the block was reduced to less than a week by another admin - therefore to be fair I think the same should reasonably apply the other way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You claim that the speedy kept AfD was not an infraction, and that all other ones (one self-reverted prod, one unreverted prod) were accidental. Could you please explain why you believed that the 2011 XMas episode AfD had a reasonable chance of getting deleted, when all previous such AfD discussions ended in keep, and you !voted strong keep in the nearly-unanimous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who)? You were aware of the precedent, you even strongly agreed with it, but now that you have an editing restriction that cautions "against nominating articles that have little realistic chance of being deleted", you decide to start such an AfD anyway? Fram (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that Wikipedia works on the basis of case law, a principle I wasn't aware of if it's true. In 2010, I argued for 'keep' because I felt that that article was subject to adequate significant coverage by multiple secondary sources. For 2011, I felt that the article was not subject to adequate coverage by multiple secondary sources. To consider these positions incompatible would require one to consider those to articles identical. They clearly were not. I'm baffled as to why you keep bringing this up. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 16:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we may be talking about the problem not the solution but at this point, the block will expire in 6 days if not lifted sooner. However, I am curious about this question myself. TT, you may have a valid point here about coverage for episodes not being independent and there are others who agree with you. However, knowing the subject like you do and knowing both how such AFDs have gone in the past and who was likely to participate in this one, did you have a reasonable expectation that this article was going to be deleted? Not "should have been deleted" but "going to be deleted". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ron: I knew that if I nominated the page for deletion, a slew of Doctor Who groupies and obsessives would come along and lobby for the article to be kept with a range of crappy WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:ITEXISTS so-called 'arguments'. However, I also thought that if the AfD was left to run its full course (which it wasn't) some sensible, uninvolved editors would turn up and provide an impartial assessment of the situation – and would see the case for deletion. By his early closure, Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) prevented that from taking place, and now I've been blocked for a week. So trebles all round. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 16:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there is an argument for deletion that can be made wrt the 2011 Christmas special and there are some editors, such as ROUX and Griswaldo, who agree with you. I consider myself an inclusionist so it's not one I agree with (but perhaps the article was created a bit too early) but an argument can be made and in principle, you should have been allowed to make it without any hassle. However, I am a little concerned about you referring to those defending the article as "groupies and obsessives". I'm not too crazy about the term "fanboy" either. These are editors who write about what interests them and it's expected that they will defend what they write. They should also be allowed to make their arguments without any hassle. Your editing restrictions were not made because you are a "deletionist" but because you are sometimes aggressive toward those who !vote "keep" in your AFDs. If unblocked, or when this current block expires, I would recommend that you not nominate any fiction related articles for deletion for a while. If they truly need to go then somebody else will nominate them. When you return to AFD, just simply state your case, see who agrees with you, and let the closing admin decide who has the strongest case. It's not necessary to respond to every single "keep" !vote. Also, in my view, there was nothing wrong with the Simon Fisher-Becker AFD. The article is a BLP (and currently has no inline sources) so it needs to meet WP:N or it needs to go. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

With greatest respect to all involved here, we're talking about the problem, not a solution to the problem. Fram, HJM, Eraserhead1, TT: could we please stop discussing the block, the AfD hoo-hahs, the everything else in the past with silver balls on top, and concentrate on how TT can resume positively contributing to the project?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that TT basically claims that there is no problem with his editing, of course... Fram (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I aim, below, to address that, and your excellent point too, Shirt. As well as many others. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

• Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

• Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

• News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

• In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

• WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi. I repeat my offer made at ANI to mentor you. I'd want you to think carefully before accepting, because the sting is that I think you're skating close to not just a topic ban, but a community ban... and your response to any mentoring would, in the case of a ban being proposed, obviously be closely scrutinised. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can be more specific about exactly what this mentorship would entail, I'll be able to comment more, but my current thinking is that if I'm close to being community-banned for nominating articles for deletion and failing to accurately predict the outcome, then so be it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But hey, if it works, I'd like to be mentored on the topic of winning lottery numbers :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've cooled off; fresh unblock request

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to formally appeal my block (which has 6 days left to run) on the basis that it was enacted because I nominated an article to AfD and that AfD resulted with 'keep'. I would point out that this result came about when it was closed 6-and-a-half days early, after only a bunch of 'Doctor Who' fans had arrived and uninvolved editors had not yet really had a chance to comment. In fact, at least one editor at WP:AN has said that they would have wanted the article deleted if they'd been able to participate in the AfD.
I think that, had it been left to run its course rather than being stifled after 12 hours, it would not have ended in such an overwhelming 'keep' vote. I think that it is unfair for me to be blocked for a week for not predicting (a) the outcome of the AfD and (b) the fact that it would be closed at a stage when only those editors who'd noticed the tag on the article itself – ie. Doctor Who fans – had had a chance to make their views clear.
Please review this request charitably.
Thanks,
TT

Decline reason:

Your proposed unblock agreement with HJ Mitchell included a commitment to not prod articles related to Doctor Who. You accepted that agreement, then prodded two bios of minor Doctor Who actors. (Plus a third Doctor Who prod which we won't count since you belatedly discussed that with HJ.) As the unblock agreement specified a one-week block for violating it, I'm afraid one week it'll have to be. 28bytes (talk) 20:21, 27 September 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.

My opinion is that the question isn't "would the AfD have resulted in keep", which we can't clearly answer -- it's "would the AfD run on December 26th have resulted in delete", which I'm pretty sure we know the answer to. It's that second question that made this disruptive, not the first one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. And equally, if the 2096 Summer Olympics page is nominated for deletion, that action would also be disruptive because if the AfD took place in 2097 the result would be 'keep'? Come off it. The standard for inclusion is significant coverage, not 'probably some significant coverage at some unspecified future point'. Otherwise we need to start creating articles for 3045 United Kingdom general election, Death of Barack Obama, 6924 Paralympics, Coronation of King Charles III of the United Kingdom etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 23:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, this edit seems to be pretty much disruptive and contrary to WP:BURO. The subject of the article is flagrantly non-notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think this is helping you in any way you might seriously regard as "helping" --Dweller (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to help myself, I was trying to place on the record my concerns that an administrator has been engaging in disruptive editing. ╟─TreasuryTag►Osbert─╢ 09:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you're not aware, a topic ban proposal has been started at WP:AN. I or another editor will be happy to copy over or transclude a comment on your behalf if you post one here, although from a strategic perspective you may be better off not commenting on it, all things considered. 28bytes (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be so good as to copy this over? If the proposed topic-ban pertains only to articles about fictional things that haven't yet come into fruition, then it is based on one single instance alone of (I would argue non-) disruptive behaviour – which seems a rather stupid basis for a topic-ban. But yeah, go for it, whatever. ╟─TreasuryTag►Osbert─╢ 09:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)