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:

I've been away from Wikipedia now for nearly two years. I've not socked or been disruptive or send abusive emails. I now feel ready to contribute constructively again, and as indefinite blocks are not meant to be infinite (and I have definitely fulfilled WP:OFFER multiple times) I would respectfully request a second chance. Thanks for your consideration.

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=I've been away from Wikipedia now for nearly two years. I've not socked or been disruptive or send abusive emails. I now feel ready to contribute constructively again, and as indefinite blocks are not meant to be infinite (and I have definitely fulfilled [[WP:OFFER]] multiple times) I would respectfully request a second chance. Thanks for your consideration. |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=I've been away from Wikipedia now for nearly two years. I've not socked or been disruptive or send abusive emails. I now feel ready to contribute constructively again, and as indefinite blocks are not meant to be infinite (and I have definitely fulfilled [[WP:OFFER]] multiple times) I would respectfully request a second chance. Thanks for your consideration. |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=I've been away from Wikipedia now for nearly two years. I've not socked or been disruptive or send abusive emails. I now feel ready to contribute constructively again, and as indefinite blocks are not meant to be infinite (and I have definitely fulfilled [[WP:OFFER]] multiple times) I would respectfully request a second chance. Thanks for your consideration. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I will advise of this to WP:AN. Note: in order to fulfill WP:OFFER fully, you are recommended to prove a positive editing history elsewhere. I'm not seeing any signs in your unblock of such history. As such, I'm not sure how you can suggest that you "have definitely fulfilled WP:OFFER multiple times". As usual, if you wish to make a comment in the ensuing AN thread, you may use {{adminhelp}} to request a copy/paste ES&L 13:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting to WP:AN. But I'm not sure where it is stated that WP:OFFER requires 'editing elsewhere'? The page lists three criteria: (1) six months without socking, (2) a commitment not to repeat the offending behaviour, and (3) no extraordinary reasons not to be unblocked. That is what I referred to when I said that I've followed OFFER. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The other point about WP:OFFER is that it needs to be explicitly extended to you - you do not choose it on your own. Can you show where an admin closed an unblock and extended WP:OFFER to you? ES&L 14:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware that that is a condition of WP:OFFER, and it seems a strangely formal step to a process which is otherwise informal, simple and egalitarian. I also can't find it stated on the WP:OFFER page.
But I also think we're both missing the point slightly, which is whether or not I have the capacity to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►Storting─╢ 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering your block log, the reasons behind this indef, the failed appeals to ArbCom, the thing that seems to be missing above is how you're going to ensure that similar behaviours will not occur in the future. It would be a 1-strike-you're-out situation, and personally, I'm not convinced by your very few words that you have determined a method of avoiding not just the conflicts, but the actions that have led you to where you currently are. As per WP:AAB and WP:GAB, you're also not acknowledging and taking responsibility for those actions that led you here ES&L 14:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Believe it or not, people (even adults) can change over the course of two years. The fact that I've been able to walk away from all this for so long, rather than stay around badgering people and making unblock requests every 40 seconds shows that I've changed at least in that small way. I think I've matured as an individual and can edit here again. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 14:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The idea that TT must have remained off-WP and not socked (the one sticking point for other bannees that seems an absolute) is one thing, and credit to TT here he seems to have stuck to it.

To then introduce a requirement (I've never seen it before) that he must also (whilst not socking) be able to "prove a positive editing history elsewhere" seems excessive and calculated in a piece of pure Catch 22 logic to exclude possibly returning bannees just for complying with our stringent anti-socking requirement! I see no virtue to this rule and no reason to introduce or impose it here. Whatever TT's past issues, lack of contribution (or socking) were not part of them.

I would thus support TT's unblocking at this point. As before, he has never been a damage causer and so any risk involved is very minor. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy - I believe that when TT was originally blocked, WP:OFFER specifically stated to prove off-en-wiki contributions - it was changed ostensibly as the other Wikimedia projects balked at being sent "trouble editors" (note: I'm not saying TT is a "trouble editor"). You'll want to make your support known in the WP:AN thread ES&L 14:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It did used to say that. And while OFFER is not required to be explicitly extended, the community will decide if and when it is applicable. Although I am a big supporter of the standard offer I do not believe it is sufficient in this case, we need to see some specifc details of what would be different if the ban were lifted, not just the sort of vague promises to behave given before many previous "last chances". And let's be clear about that, TT says he is asking for a second chance but he has already had nearly forty chances and blown them all. "I'm ready to behave" is not nearly enough detail to even begin a discussion of lifting this ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you want in terms of 'detail' – obviously, all I can offer in the way of assurance is/are words. And yes, I could just be saying what I think you want to hear. But there's nothing more I can do... ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 17:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I see a great reason in favour of unblocking is that it's easy to make it forty-one. He's not destructive. Even in the worst case, we still lose very little. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• See, all you've given us in your request is "I stayed away." I will grant that you did seem to finally get the point about repeated unblock requests, but the mere passage of time is not in and of itself a reason to lift a block or ban. You argue that indefinite does not mean infinite. That is true, but it also misses the point. Indefinite means until such time as you can supply a good reason why the block is no longer needed to prevent you from disrupting Wikipedia. You know what got you into trouble before but I don't see a single word in your request that addresses it at all. You mention problematic behaviors that came after the block, but not the underlying causes of the many, many blocks you have received over a period of more than five years. You basically exhausted the community's patience and now the only argument you present to be trusted to edit here again is that you managed, finally, to just go away for a while. That does help, but without some indication that you understand why you were blocked all those times and will endeavor not to repeat those behaviors it is not going to be enough for some of us. I'm not trying to force you to apologize or beg or anything like that, just concerned that you are just trying your luck at finding a few sympathetic uses and getting unblocked, a maneuver that has worked for you many times in the past. I'm willing to be convinced, but what you have presented so far is not very compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, indefinite means until the matter can be resolved by discussion. TT has said they are "ready to contribute constructively again." Confession and groveling (should) are not required. NE Ent 09:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean as we are quite obviously having that discussion right now and I have been quite clear that I do not expect or desire groveling. If I thought groveling was the only way I could support unblocking this user I wouldn't waste my time talking to him as he is clearly not the type who would ever do so anyway. That is not the same thing as owning one's mistakes and giving some indication of what you would do to avoid making those same mistakes in the future. Or in other words, why unblock #40 would accomplish something that unblocks 1-39 did not. I don't think it is unduly harsh to ask someone who has had dozens of second chances to be specific about what is so different now.

However, the way things are currently trending at AN it seems the community is in a forgiving mood at the moment and it looks likely that the ban will be lifted. I assume it is understood by TT that will be being watched closely for any return to the types of problematic behavior that have caused so much disruption in the past and that their desire for reform, vague though it is, is genuine. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic bans ect

In view of the unban discussion at WP:AN can you answer the following questions: If there is no specific mention of restrictions in that discussion what restrictions do you see still as binding? What suggestions can you make to eliviate any doubts about any possible "danger" you might be to the project? Agathoclea (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a 6-month editing restriction against me initiating deletion processes which kicks into force as soon as I am unblocked. This would keep me away from certain fault-lines from the past. As to future 'danger', I don't know what I can say really; the practical danger is extremely limited because I can be re-blocked very quickly, and I'm sure a lot of people will be watching out. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 08:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To be posted to this WP:AN section

• General response to comments such as this—deeply unreasonable, though to be fair probably also unthinking. I had a bad attitude, I was uncollegial, I did battleground behavior and I did deploy near-personal attacks. But I resent the present tense, because, though it pains me to repeat this point endlessly, people can change over the course of two years. Everyone sees this change in themselves, I imagine. How come it's completely beyond the realm of possibility that I've changed too?
  The thrust of most of the 'oppose' votes in this discussion seems to be that I should never ever ever be allowed back onto Wikipedia because it's completely impossible for me ever to be a constructive editor.
  And I was expecting that from some quarters, and I could live with that, but what incentive does that create for banned editors to go away and contemplate and mature and reform? By that logic I may as well [and this isn't a threat because I have no intention of doing this] just create a sock and start editing straight away.
  Sorry if this appears to be a bit of a rant. But I want people to think sensibly about their reasoning here. If the logic behind your !vote is that my personality is exactly the same as it was in October 2011, please think again, because that clearly isn't plausible. I've changed, I've become a more civilsed person, and I'd like the chance to edit here again and once more make a contribution. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)