User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2012/Jun

ArbCom unblock appeal

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. The Committee took into consideration that you are under a Community Ban, and the community has recently declined an unban appeal.

After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts you may again apply to have your ban reviewed. As there is no automatic entitlement to an unban you will need to provide either the community or the Committee with good reasons why an unban should take place. Additionally, there would be an expectation that you would provide evidence of insight into the conduct that caused the problems in the first place, as well as commitment to changed and well-controlled behaviour.

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would consider the clock on the communty ban reset to zero since he attempted to end-run it by going to arbcom to appeal a non-arbcom ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have had multiple disagreements with TreasuryTag in the past and therefore recused myself from the Arbitration Committee's discussion of his appeal. However, it was well in order for TreasuryTag to appeal to the Committee from his community ban, as this is specifically authorized in the relevant policy (see WP:BAN). As a matter of practice, ArbCom will sometimes request community input on an appeal from a community ban, especially when it is actively considering lifting the ban. One could also construct an argument that only a community discussion should be allowed to override a community ban, at least in the absence of privacy, checkuser, or similar issues. However, under policy as it now exists, TreasuryTag did nothing wrong by appealing to the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  I know he didn't break any rules or anything, but it still smells like an attempt at an end-run. Of course that is just my opinion, informed by the knowledge of TT's various sneaky tactics he has used in the past to be unblocked and avoid scrutiny. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  As NYB has pointed out, ArbCom's previous ruling on my ban appeal (dated 24 October 2011) stated, "The Committee is not willing to lift this community ban at this time. You may request a review of your community ban in six months." It would be a little strange for me to be penalised for doing something which was explicitly OK-ed by ArbCom.
  Beeblerox's "I know he didn't break any rules or anything but let's find a way to punish him anyway" does him no credit and seems rather contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. He should feel free to take his gratuitious "sneaky" attacks elsewhere. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 08:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  I was one of those who opposed TT,s unblocking. An after seeing his latest comment above I feel he is nowhere closer to understanding why he was blocked. Still the same personal attacks it seems, this time towards user Beeblebrox. The block should stay.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I can't actually spot the bit where I made a personal attack against Beeblerox but I'm sure it must be there if you say so. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 10:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  If you dont see it, then I am 100% sure you are not ready for unblocking. Why do you always keep on victimize yourself instead of trying to improve your behaviour that has led to this block?--BabbaQ (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  Well then you are 100% mistaken but I don't see the need to engage in further banter with you for the moment. ╟─TreasuryTag►contemnor─╢ 10:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, it appears to me that the timeframe was appropriate. We also do have the WP:BASC for a reason, so an ArbCom appeal seems fine. In the process of desiring to be unblocked, accusing someone of wanting TT "punished" or being "gratuitous" and "sneaky" when all they did was give a personal opinion as a fellow editor does seem to me that indeed, TT doesn't yet grasp the reasons behind their block. This is really unfortunate. Dude, let bygones be bygones. Rise above. If water can't roll of your back, how do you expect to swim around here? Face the fact that you have pissed a LOT of people off, and you will ALWAYS have people sniping about you. You're not going to like it, and it cannot be stopped, but your reaction has to be "meh", consistently. Honestly, 5 years after you eventually do get unblocked, someone will snipe at you - you'll have to think for 10 seconds before clicking "save page" with a snarky/sarcastic retort on it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Bwilkins has some very sage advice here. Also, TreasuryTag, one way to look at what Beeblebrox is saying is that you do not get more than one unban request in a six months period, you can either choose to put your reasons forward through BASC or the community, but asking both is unreasonable as it expends large portions of time and effort for that group each time you do. Worm^TT(talk) 11:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of Beeblerox's point, but it is not a point which has a basis in policy. Rare as it is for me to say this, NYB is correct. ArbCom said I could appeal to them within six months which is their prerogative. The community set whatever time limit it set (I forget now) which is their prerogative. No policy of which I am aware says that blocked editors may be penalised for following both sets of advice. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 11:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The BASC has two roles - to consider appeals of the original ban and to consider unban requests. The former isn't really handled by the community and shouldn't count against the banned user, but the latter can be. Since this is the second time you've contacted BASC (by my count) and given SilkTork's comments, I assume you are asking for an unban request, rather than an appeal. If you were to ask the community for an unban request within the next 6 months, I am certain that a large portion will see it as "asking the other parent" and I doubt it would succeed. Worm^TT(talk) 11:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)