User talk:TreasuryTag

My pontificality of prelates

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 [1] 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)

• Well, I guess I'll be back in a month to have the block reviewed again. See you! ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 07:43, 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)

• 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)

Response to WP:AN thread—please copy over

• This is a response to this comment by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) that I would like copied over to WP:AN—I have not used "three other accounts". I have undergone renaming, which is a transparent process. Each of my block-logs contains a link to the previous username. My userpage clearly states my previous usernames. I don't know why Beeblebrox has taken it upon themselves to try and smear me in this way but it's distinctly unimpressive given that it's simply based on fact and personal attacks of absurd accusations – ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 07:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 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)