User talk:TreasuryTag

My pontificality of prelates

Mentoring status

I checked the archived thread on the mentoring proposal but it seems to have ended inconclusively. If you care to comment... Did you have private followups, or is it still open? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dweller offered mentorship. I asked what this would involve, and haven't yet received a response. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 07:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm suggesting that I restrict you to certain kinds of editing, while you engage with me regarding some of the issues that have emerged surrounding your editing. As you progress, the restrictions will gradually be lifted. The idea of the restrictions is to enable us to concentrate on the issues without the distraction of new complaints about you, here or at noticeboards. If I feel it's going nowhere because of my shortcomings or because you're not responding suitably, I'll go back to AN and say I failed. --Dweller (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can propose some specific restrictions then I'd be able to comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd need to start with very wide-ranging ones. Don't edit anything in projectspace. Don't nominate anything for deletion by any means of doing so. Don't edit anything reasonably connected to Dr Who. Don't write any whole words in edit summaries. Basically trying to remove you from potential conflicts - we've a lot of work to do. I wouldn't expect the restrictions to be in place long. Feel free to discuss this with User:Bus stop, whom I mentored similarly. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, my memory is faulty. It was you I mentored like this. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't edit anything in projectspace. Absolutely not agreed. Don't nominate anything for deletion by any means of doing so. Absolutely not agreed. Don't edit anything reasonably connected to Dr Who. Absolutely not agreed. Don't write any whole words in edit summaries. How is that even conducive to collabroative editing?!
I'm sorry – those restrictions would basically remove my ability to edit Wikipedia at all, since those are my normal areas of interest/activity. So I think this proposed mentorship won't work. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 09:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you've not read my proposal very carefully. And I think that your tone is entirely wrong, which has seriously damaged my faith in my ability to help you. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not only have I read your proposal, but I've quoted what I consider to be the salient parts of it. You proposed four restrictions: Don't edit anything in projectspace. Don't nominate anything for deletion by any means of doing so. Don't edit anything reasonably connected to Dr Who. Don't write any whole words in edit summaries. That is what you wrote. I read it carefully. And I said that I am not prepared to accept any of those restrictions. Perhaps you could clarify to me which passage of your proposal you think I've misinterpreted? ╟─TreasuryTag►contemnor─╢ 10:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"I wouldn't expect the restrictions to be in place long".

I also think you should reflect on the fact that the entire purpose of this mentoring is to ensure you are able to continue editing Wikipedia. Comments like "How is that even conducive to collabroative editing?! I'm sorry – those restrictions would basically remove my ability to edit Wikipedia at all" are not only sardonically biting the hand that's trying very hard to feed you, they also demonstrate that you don't understand that a) a significant number of editors feel you don't edit collaboratively and b) you shouldn't be allowed to edit part or whole of Wikipedia ever again. I'd very much like to tackle a and b so that they are no longer issues, but it seems you don't perceive them to be issues... which, as I say, makes me feel like I'm wating my time. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you said they wouldn't be in place long ('probably') – I don't see how my initial reply suggested I hadn't read that passage. My point was, and is, that those restrictions would prevent me from editing any Wikipedia page I would edit in an average week, and frankly, the whole-words-in-edit-summaries thing is just bizarre. I'm afraid that I simply will not accept those restrictions. If you feel able to suggest a compromise, I'm happy to consider it. If not, I guess I'll just have to 'take my chances' without a mentor. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Bizarre"?!? Seven different editors (seven!) mentioned your problematic use of edit summaries at your editor review. Your attitude (I absolutely refuse, I absolutely refuse and while I'm absolutely refusing I'll insult your a couple of your suggestions) is not of one who is looking to compromise. I refuse to waste any more time on this. I'll post at AN that I've failed. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, using no whole words in edit-summaries is bizarre. So I guess that re movi ng unccptbl mtrl fr om thi s p a ge would be OK on that basis...? I have repeatedly pointed out that your proposals would effectively prevent me from editing Wikipedia at all. Making such a proposal is not the attitude of someone interested in compromising. I am sorry that you feel you are wasting your time; you've always been helpful to me in the past and I hope we can work together amicably in the future. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that senseless aggressive pedantry of the first two sentences of your reply just really sadden me. I wish you'd put your undoubted intelligence to more sensible and collegiate use - like the last sentence. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

OK; if you want less senseless pedantry then how about this: do you really think it is better for me to go around Wikipedia editing, making changes etc. and not including any explanation whatsoever in the edit-summary? Because it would undoubtedly be easier for me not to bother typing, "original research," or, "unreferenced," or whatever. I do it as a courtesy, as per WP:ES, but if you're saying it would be advisable not to do that then I may as well not bother. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 10:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See this and replace "talk page edits" with "edit summaries". --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's quite different to "no whole words in edit-summaries" – ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Apologies for jumping in uninvited again. I haven't been following this closely, so this suggestion might be at best redundant and at worst a very bad comment. I take full responsibility for this comment and for any repercussions about it. In my opinion:

* TT's problems are about Dr Who related articles

* TT is otherwise a very fine editor indeed

* Rather than focusing on the problem, lets look for a solution

* I suggest that if TT is un-indef'd, like the processes for problematic AfD-ers or similar in my jurisdiction, TT must ask for the opinion of an Admin or a trusted user before making any Dr Who related article edits whatsoever.

And, hey, TT: Articles you might like to edit, from Shirt58Bot - Lawyers bodkin - --Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, Doctor Who is my main field of editing, so it would be a serious and almost absolute impediment for me to have to ask and wait for permission before each individual edit. So I will not accept such a restriction; sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 12:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Hi TreasuryTag, I've seen that wherever you've signed your username, the contributions link text changes to something different each time. Can you tell me how this is done? Rcsprinter (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now discovered User:TreasuryTag/sig, so you can ignore me if you want. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On the edit restriction discussion...

The administrators who close community proposals understand the closure policy, including the higher weight given to coherent arguments rather than just counting heads for/against. While you are currently correctly stating policy, you're also badgering those who are supporting the proposal. That type of badgering behavior has a very short tolerance limit, particularly on AN discussions, and also is certainly not helping your case. If you can avoid shooting your own cause in the foot, I would appreciate it. My interpretation of the situation is that either an admin or the community are going to indef you if you don't cooperate with something here that keeps you out of trouble. If that's not a mentorship situation, this topic ban is the only thing I can think of that will work. If you want to force the issue and get indef blocked, it would be easier for you to just stop editing, rather than cause a blowup and be forced out. I believe that would be a waste of your ability and interest, and I hope you chose not to go down that road. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was 'badgering' (as you call it) more for the education of the editors who were engaging in WP:VOTE-violating behaviour, since I charitably assumed that they were not aware of that policy and were not deliberately flouting it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 07:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Shutting Out the Italians?

Are you that sure that as a non-admin, and considering that you're up for yet another topic ban on AN, that you should be closing a thread that could potentially affect millions of Italian WP editors? Why not let an admin in good standing close it? Are you in a position right now to be closing unresolved threads on AN/I - I, as a non-admin in good standing, wouldn't think of closing that thread. Doc talk 08:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not an incident, it doesn't affect millions of Italian WP editors because we don't have millions of Italian WP editors, and it's not an incident. Bye. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 09:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I liked the way the other guy closed it better though - jus' sayin'. Good luck with your other issues: I am truly neutral when it comes to you and will have no part in any vote for or against any topic ban. Cheers, and sorry if I came off a little "gruff" :> Doc talk 09:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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)}

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)

---

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)

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. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

[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)

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)

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

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

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

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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)