User talk:TreasuryTag

My pontificality of prelates

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. –xeno^talk 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC) ^{21:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

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:

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 [[::User:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]] ([[::User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/HJ Mitchell|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)[reply]

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). –xeno^talk 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. –xeno^talk 21:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh dear, I've just checked and you're quite right! I guess someone had better block me then... ╟─Treasury Tag►Subsyndic General─╢ 21:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll cross it out then. Does that satisfy your pointless requirement? ╟─Treasury Tag►tortfeasor─╢ 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Token comment to prevent archival. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 05:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ridiculous redirect

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do I mind if you unilaterally overturn the consensus from an RfD? Yes. I do. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I second that. Cross-namespace redirects from article space should be avoided. Favonian (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]