User talk:TreasuryTag

My pontificality of prelates

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Per previous.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Per previous. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per previous. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per previous. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

╟─TreasuryTag►contemnor─╢ 17:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• As a community-imposed ban this will have to be discussed by the community. I for one am not even willing to open that conversation based on a two word unblock request. Unblock based on previous failed attempts to get unblocked? That makes no sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  The points I made in my previous request (I'm happy to provide a link, or you can view it via the page history) are the same points I am making now. Much of the opposition last time was based on 'too soon' arguments. I have since been completely away from Wikipedia for over 6 months and trust that that opposition will not be repeated.
  I understand if you're not willing to start a discussion about this, therefore please could someone else do so on the well-known grounds that indefinite blocks are not supposed to be infinite.
  Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 18:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)