User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2012/Mar

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Unblock request

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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/Archives/2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per my previous unblock request – all of which still stands, of course – and WP:OFFER. I would also like to point out that I've not socked, not nagged, not abused this talkpage etc. I'm contrite, I've taken my break and I feel ready to give it another shot at changing my ways. Please consider this request charitabily. TT.

Decline reason:

As per the community discussion here, the consensus at this time is not to unblock. Although unblocking is not about "time served", it appears that the adage "time heals all wounds" may be true in the case of lost trust. I would hope that you take a lot of the advice to heart - indeed, this may have been successful if your request had addressed all aspects according to WP:GAB. Please know, this is not about kneeling and begging the community, but sufficient displays of contrition and assurance that there will be no additional issues in the future would probably be better received. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:16, 19 March 2012 (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.

Hey TT. As you have been community banned, it will require a community unban. I'll copy this across to WP:AN for you. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've temporarily disabled ClueBot III archiving while this unblock request is open, as it archived it - hope that's ok -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit pressed for time but here's a brief comment: Dweller has proposed four conditions. No Doctor Who editing – I'll accept this condition if we can agree on a time-limit. No deletion nominations – I'm 'currently' topic-banned from deletion nominations for six months after being unblocked, so I trust Dweller will find this satisfactory. No editing of Wikipedia: space – sorry, no, I think it's important for me to be able to interact, comment on XfDs, enter discussions on noticeboards and at the Village Pump, !vote in RfAs and so on. No whole words in edit-summaries – no because it would disrupt Wikipedia. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Further remark: just think about how these restrictions would work. I'd remove some content from an article, say because it was original research, and be banned from leaving an edit-summary. Another editor wonders why I did it. They look at my contributions and see that I've done the same thing on other pages. They report me to WP:ANI. But I can't respond there.
How is this helpful to anybody? ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 21:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've copied those comments to the ANI thread -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My point about no-full-words-in-edit-summaries is this: I'm not aware that anybody has ever complained about my edit-summaries on the grounds that they're written in proper English (though I stand to be corrected on this front). The complaints have usually been about abrasive languages, sarcasm, insinuations etc. Therefore, a sensible restriction would focus on those issues rather than on something completely irrelevant, namely the length of words being used. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

[1] TT forced my hand by declining mentoring without knowing what the restrictions would be. I'm sorry, but that is not at all what happened. As is clear from the diff Dweller provided, I said, "If you can propose some specific restrictions then I'd be able to comment." Then Dweller proposed his specific restrictions, which I then declined. Dweller's statement just now is simply untrue.
Meanwhile, as I've said, I am now willing/required to accept the first two propsals. The fourth proposal seems not to be impressing the community anyway. And I'm happy to negotiate on the third one. How does that sound as a starting-point? ╟─Treasury Tag►Storting─╢ 22:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Copied that over too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I've reinstated ClueBot III archive. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)