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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That block-description is actually mistaken/misleading as I did not engage in sockpuppetry (or can you provide an example of me doing so?) ╟─Treasury Tag►tortfeasor─╢ 07:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should he be added to the list? 140.247.141.149 (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, I guess I'll be back in a month to have the block reviewed again. See you! ╟─Treasury Tag►tortfeasor─╢ 07:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 – ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 07:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]