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.
It was a mistake - sorry...Modernist (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
showin willin
TT, it will be less stress on you to remove the comments - I think your point has been made - take the load off yourself and show willin an remove it is my best, respectful, advice to you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that it's always been my policy not to give in to ochlocrats of the sort that are the antagonists in this situation. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 18:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I also have a degree of Resistance to such issues ...but it is still correct to bend and show willin when multiple users have concerns and willingness to bend in such situations is a more mature position and only makes you stronger. Rigidness in such situations almost requests more pressure in search of the breaking point. The points been made TT please just take it down and we can close down the 3RRNB and ANI threads. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
That's not going to happen. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 18:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Well - you made your bed ya better lie in it. - See you around TT. Good luck to you in your future projects. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I reckon the username "Ttstlkr" was pretty stupid. If any admin had had any doubts about whether the user should be blocked, that username would have announced pretty clearly what the answer was. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
File:PottermoreMagicalQuill.jpg
What is wrong with File:PottermoreMagicalQuill.jpg? --DisneyFriends (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
A beer for you!
For your comment here [1] saying the right thing at the right time. Thank you. WormTT· (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
D'oh
My apologies by the way, I saw some edits WRT the hat/hab ... it was even placed in the wrong place. Based on the diffs, I mistakenly attributed the addition to you. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
No prob – we've all done that sort of thing. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit summary
Hi. You recently included a telephone number in an edit summary. I don't know whom that phone number belongs to, and I don't plan to call it to find out, but I assume this is some sort of ironic or sardonic comment on what you considered the nature of the warning you were responding to. Nonetheless, I can't imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate to include a phone number in an edit summary, so perhaps it would be best if you don't do this again. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It was, in fact, the British equivalent of a 5-5-5 number, but I very much appreciate your concern over this issue. All the very best, ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 16:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Nyan Cat animation
Hi TreasuryTag. I left a comment on the talk page for File:Nyan Cat animation.gif. Let me know what you think. Thanks, GobonoboTC 23:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry
Hey. I was commenting on a post you made over at Graeme's page and came across you message. Sorry you've dealt with shitty people. I don't want to influence your decision but hope that wherever your life takes you after WP, that it makes you happy. Good luck, Treasury. OlYellerTalktome 17:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for I wasn't going to block you for the first time you told someone "fuck you", but to restore that personal attack is utterly unacceptable. You've been around plenty long enough to know that was not allowed under WP:NPA.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 21:02, 25 August 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).
I need to be unblocked so that I can air my views in the three month ban-proposal regarding myself which has just been initiated at WP:AN. If it is the opinion of the community that my response of "fuck you" to a bullying administrator was inappropriate, then I will undertake not to edit any pages other than WP:AN and this talkpage until the block would have expired. Whatever.
Decline reason:
TreasuryTag, that doesn't actually address the reason for the block. Should you have any comments you'd like me to copy across to the AN then let me know, I or any other member of the community can do that for you and as such I'm declining this unblock. WormTT· (talk) 21:11, 25 August 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.
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).
Since "the reason for the block" was pure harassment I thought it was more tactful to sidestep it entirely: and, as I'm sure you know, tact is one of my most abundant qualities. However, if you would like me to point out that the phrase in question is comparatively minor incivility of a variety which is tolerated on Wikipedia every day, then I will do so: the phrase in question is comparatively minor incivility of a variety which is tolerated on Wikipedia every day. I see no real reason why I should be held to a higher standard than other editors, though I must admit I am used to such treatment. There: that's my unblock request. ALSO, BEFORE UNBLOCKING ME, COULD SOMEONE COPY MY COMMENT BELOW OVER TO WHEREVER THE BAN DISCUSSION IS TAKING PLACE. Thanks.
Decline reason:
Because others have gotten away with something doesn't mean what you did was ok and you knew it wasn't ok. So this block is valid. DJSasso (talk) 21:56, 25 August 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.
Strong oppose for several reasons. Firstly, I think it would be unwise to reward harassment in any way, shape or form. Nor would it be appropriate to incentivise deliberate baiting[2] by demonstrating that it works. Secondly, I think that this is an overreaction (and a very fast, off-the-cuff-and-not-thought-through overreaction) to comparatively minor incivility of a variety which is tolerated on Wikipedia every day. I see no real reason why I should be held to a higher standard than other editors, though I must admit I am used to such treatment. The other cited example of disruption – again, from the last couple of hours rather than representing a long-term trend worth slapping down a three-month ban for – is that I initiated a DRV to discuss whether or not 60% constituted a consensus to delete swathes of my userpage. I don't see this as disruptive, nor even as unreasonable. I think it is legitimate scrutiny of a (poor) administrative decision. For those reasons, I insist and expect that this ban will not be issued and that those who have been harassing me can move along pronto. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 21:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
For your convenience I will transclude your talk page to AN so that you may participate in the ban discussion. 28bytes (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose for several reasons. Firstly, I think it would be unwise to reward harassment in any way, shape or form. Nor would it be appropriate to incentivise deliberate baiting[3] by demonstrating that it works. Secondly, I think that this is an overreaction (and a very fast, off-the-cuff-and-not-thought-through overreaction) to comparatively minor incivility of a variety which is tolerated on Wikipedia every day. I see no real reason why I should be held to a higher standard than other editors, though I must admit I am used to such treatment. The other cited example of disruption – again, from the last couple of hours rather than representing a long-term trend worth slapping down a three-month ban for – is that I initiated a DRV to discuss whether or not 60% constituted a consensus to delete swathes of my userpage. I don't see this as disruptive, nor even as unreasonable. I think it is legitimate scrutiny of a (poor) administrative decision. For those reasons, I insist and expect that this ban will not be issued and that those who have been harassing me can move along pronto. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 21:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm also slightly suspicious of an editor whose first edit was a very expert one just three months ago and has suddenly decided to pursue me. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 21:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, back to ANI we go. Please take this as notification. Black Kite (t)(c) 13:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Coming here regarding this, I've just got one thing to say. TT, whether or not the link is there is not a big deal. People are getting worked up about it for some reason (I really can't tell why, neither it nor you referring to it as harassment is particularly bad, all things told), but it's a lot easier to just let it drop rather than turn this into some kind of huge thing. Not listening when so much of the community clearly thinks there's a problem is itself a problem, I think we can agree, even when the community is wrong. Argue for being able to keep it, if you must, but don't just edit war to keep it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my point exactly. As I've said at ANI, I don't want to see you talking yourself into a long block, and your edit summaries appear to indicate you are going to carry on posting the same type of material as the MFD removed. Black Kite (t)(c) 13:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see sense
Harassment redacted
It's actually going to lead to bad results for other people too if they keep poking him. 28bytes (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for Replying
I now understand your reasoning, and although I can find no mention of that standard in the policy you linked to, it does make sense. It had seemed to me that your reverts were near-vandalous, but I couldn't quite believe that of what looked like a reasonable editor and now that we've communicated that is no longer the case. Communication is the solution to many problems and misunderstandings. It seems to me that the article as it is still seems to be tacitly supporting the idea that there was an error because it mentions only the correct iTunes Store names for those two tracks and not the names given on the CD case. Would you object to the article stating the fact that the tracks have two different names in the iTunes Store and on the CD without stating that one version is an error? -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes I would, per WP:UNDUE. If you cannot find a reliable source which identifies these matters as something worth talking about, then Wikipedia will not cover them. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 13:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
But why are the track names in the iTunes Store worth mentioning and not those on the CD? Is there a policy that supports considering the iTunes Store more notable? -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
They're not really very different and it is perfectly possible to produce a simple track-list which clearly conveys the necessary information without getting bogged down in details about inconsistencies and errors and contradictions. That is how the article is at the moment. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 13:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
So we tacitly give it more weight without explicitly doing so and just assume common sense on the part of readers who have the CD? I'm not sure how encyclopedic that is. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not a question of giving it "more weight" – The Master Suitelordsisobviously a typing error for The Master Suite. There is no need to give "weight" to something which is so clearly a trivial mistake. The same goes for The Council of the Time (the word 'the' indicates that the word Lords has simply been missed off by accident). I'm sorry if you find Wikipedia's position on this disappointing, but there it is. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 13:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm still unsure. The physical fact of the CD case seems worth mentioning to me in a factual database about the soundtrack. However, you would no doubt come out on top of any disagreement due to seniority and it's not high on my list of priorities. At least the article as is doesn't state anything false; that I would be more reluctant to let go. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
There is literally no point in discussing obvious mistakes. That's all there is to it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 13:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Your goals and participation in Wikipedia
TreasuryTag, this post just expresses my personal opinions and concerns. Because of our past disagreements, I certainly am not going to take any action regarding you as an administrator (nor as an arbitrator, of course, if it ever came to that). On the other hand, I'm saddened by the interactions you've been a part of lately, both because I am sure they are stressful for you and because of the impact they are having on other editors and the time of various people that has been spent in addressing them.
Since you resumed editing a few days ago, you seem to have spent most (though not all) of your time debating the extent to which you are free to refer in various ways to past disputes to which you were a party, broken up on occasion by a couple of more current disputes (such as the one that currently has you blocked—I'm not going to say anything about the merits of that block). All of this is at a time when you continue to state that you have a low regard for Wikipedia and are hoping to leave it entirely soon.
I think it would be helpful for you to figure out what your goals are, and then adjust your methods to them. If you want to continue editing, and to do so without undue stress either on yourself or on other editors, I think you should make a firm effort to put past disputes behind you. I also think that you should review, and try to be influenced by the comments you received in, the editor review that you had started and that was underway until you said you were departing. Although I don't agree with everything that was said there, I think there was some valuable input that you and everyone else would benefit if you took heed of.
On the other hand, if your intention is to leave Wikipedia in the upcoming weeks, then I don't think it's going to do anyone any good for you to continue getting involved in arguments on your way out the door. If I were intending to leave after I finished up a few things, I would concentrate on those things and get them finished. If I were intending to leave altogether because I'd decided that Wikipedia wasn't a good fit for me, or I wasn't a good fit for Wikipedia, or for whatever reason, then I would stop editing and start doing something else I enjoyed more.
I've spent more time myself on Wikipedia than I'd ever expected or intended to—but I always remember, as everyone else should, that Wikipedia is a hobby. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take a serious and professional approach to what we do; it does mean that if our time on Wikipedia becomes more unhappy then happy, more stressful than enjoyable, a low point rather than a high point of one's day—then it is time to find another way to spend one's free time. It is not for me or anyone else here to tell you whether you are at that point. But from your messages on your userpage and this page, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that you have reached that conclusion. And if that is the case, I would use whatever limited amount of time you still intend to spend here working on improving the content of the site, rather than in a series of quarrels.
Just my thoughts, written in haste and shared for what they are worth. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's put it this way then
If you suggest another good faith edit is "stupid" in the edit summary, or make some similarly rude, negative, unconstructive remark as regards your fellow editors' good faith contributions, you may be blocked from editing. Your unfortunate disregard for civility in edit summaries and discussions was mentioned at your editor review; it is similarly unfortunate that you have not taken on board the constructive criticism you invited. –xenotalk 17:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Following on from my comments on your talkpage about your loss of perspective, I need to let you know that, once again, you are mistaken if you think that use of the word "stupid" is a blockable offence. I will continue to describe stupidity as "stupid", just as I will continue to describe nonsense as "nonsense", crap as "crap" and spades as "spades". If you wish to make the workings of Wikipedia look utterly ridiculous by blocking me for any of those utterances, then you must do as you think right, but I would strongly recommend you to think carefully first. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 17:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you have lost sight of the fact that this is a collaborative project whose most important resource is it's editors. If you are unwilling to reexamine your approach to describing the contributions of fellow editors and work towards doing so in a polite, positive, and constructive manner, then I may take actions as I see fit to prevent the loss of contributors due to your unnecessarily acerbic commentary. All I am asking is that you follow the same advice you are giving in your edit notice. This is not an unreasonable request. –xenotalk 17:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
So far today, you've made only three edits, all of which were threats to block me for something utterly trivial. Yesterday you RevDel-ed half my talkpage and again threatened to block me – again for something utterly trivial. Please find something more useful to do with your time. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 17:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Block notification
I have placed a twelve hour block on your account and removed your talk page access for the duration. You need to modify your approach to engaging with other users: every user acting acting in good faith is doing their best to improve the project. Suggesting that their efforts are "stupid", or that what they have written is "drivel", "nonsense", "crap" - this is entirely inappropriate. If you are not willing to explain to other good faith users - in polite, positive, and constructive terms - why you have reverted their edit, then do not revert their edit. Furthermore, it not appropriate to suggest that everyone who contacts you on these fundamental issues is harassing you.
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).
I seem to have been hard-blocked without the ability to edit my own page [since granted by another admin] for not wanting to continue a particularly pointless conversation with Xeno which started off as a civility warning over my use of the word "stupid" (which I have not repeated since the warning) and degenerated into Xeno continuing to leave further comments on my talkpage despite being asked to desist. They seem to have taken exception to my saying that they RevDel-ed part of my talkpage – because it was actually part of my userpage that was RevDel-ed. This seems like extremely petty pedantry, and for Xeno to continue to message me about it (and even edit my own comments over it) seems tantamount to harassment. There is also a strong issue of WP:UNINVOLVED since Xeno is the person who considered themselved wronged and they are the one who blocked me. And it is such a minor issue. So please unblock me. Thanks.
Decline reason:
This block appears to be valid. In looking through your contributions, I have noticed that you have a marked tendency to respond inappropriately to users who approach you in good faith. This has been noted multiple times on multiple forums, and the block that has been issued is quite lenient. I do not see that Xeno is involved to the point he should not be issuing blocks; the involvement he has had appears to be in an administrative capacity only, as far as I can tell. Hersfold(t/a/c) 20:43, 28 August 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.
Comment; TreasuryTag's unblock request seems highly disingenuous; the block notice makes clear that the block is for his attitude to other users, and not for "not wanting to continue a particularly pointless conversation with Xeno". Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I think it inappropriate that I should be blocked for use of the word "stupid" five hours later, by an admin with whom I had since become involved in a separate dispute. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
While it would be inappropriate of me (as the person who gave you talkpage access) to make a decision on the unblock, I will point out that you were not blocked for calling someone stupid; blocks are preventative, not punitive. You were blocked for being unnecessarily rude and, in a conversation about that rudeness, not only failing to grasp that but stating quite happily that you would continue this behaviour. You were blocked so you wouldn't violate policy again, you weren't blocked because you did in the past. Xeno's involvement or uninvolvement is not something I'll comment on. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The point is that Xeno first rasied an objection to my use of the word 'stupid' at 17:52 my time. I immediately replied to state that I saw nothing wrong with the word and that I would feel free to use it again in future. We then engaged in a (ridiculously) lengthy dialogue, and it was not until after Xeno and I became engaged in a separate dispute that they chose to block me at 20:14. So if I was blocked for using the word 'stupid', why wasn't I blocked at 17:52? Or, if I was blocked for stating that I reserved the right to continue using it, why wasn't I blocked at 17:57? It is highly, highly suspicious that I wasn't blocked until over two hours later, after Xeno and I were embroiled in a distinct argument. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Around 17:56 (when you made it clear that you had no intention to modify your approach) I was out eating breakfast editing from an iPhone [4] and in no position to issue a block. Your block is also related to the constant referring to any kind of justifiable commentary about your editing as "harassment". To suggest that an administrator becomes involved simply because an editor feels they are being harassed means an editor could make themselves block proof just by suggesting every administrator who scrutinized their behaviour is harassing them. –xenotalk 20:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Your repeatedunwantedirritatingpedantic edits to my talkpage most certainly did constitute harassment. See WP:HA—"Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by [...] repeated annoying and unwanted contacts." ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 20:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Revision deletion of talk pages is rarely done and only in very limited circumstances. Suggesting that I revision deleted "half of your talk page" (a page with over 4500 revisions) is inappropriate, the difference between deleting over 2000 revisions of a talk page and 27 revisions of a user page is not pedantic, and my request for you to correct that inaccurate statement was not harassment. –xenotalk 20:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Repeated unwanted contact is harassment. Fact. ╟─TreasuryTag►Storting─╢ 21:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Xeno, thanks for the rationnal, there was an edit conflict. I was going to say that sysops takes time to take action and that WP:INVOLVED was why you didn't block. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 20:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to refer to all manner of justifiable administrative scrutiny towards your actions as "harassment". I have placed a further block on your account (without talk page privileges to prevent edit warring on your talk page). I would strongly urge you to consider the advice given to you above by Newyorkbrad, and advice given to you by others about modifying your approach to editing here. I have noted this administrative action at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#TreasuryTag. You may email me, or any other administrator, a statement to be posted there. –xenotalk 11:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Below received via email @ 17:22 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).
I complained that Xeno was harassing me - not just as whining, but presenting diffs and quotes from WP:HA as evidence - and Xeno has informed me that it was not harassment and accordingly blocked me for the second time in 24hrs. Xeno is clearly subject to WP:INVOLVED here: they are not neutral enough to make a final decision as to whether or not their conduct constitites harassment, and they should not place lengthy blocks in response to feeling that they have been personally wronged. At the very least, this block should be reduced to time served.
Decline reason:
Xeno is not involved simply because you claim s/he's harassing you. I've been following the discussions and accusations and agree that Xeno's block was both justified and appropriate, if not a bit lenient. Ioeth (talkcontribstwinkle) 17:37, 29 August 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.
If you agree to stop calling every single request for you to moderate your behaviour in line with community norms "harassment" (excepting if you make such claims only in the course of initiating or responding to legitimate dispute resolution processes such as a report at a noticeboard, request for comment, or request for arbitration - i.e. do not simply collapse or remove material from your talk page and call it "harassment") AND endeavour to politely, positively, and constructively explain using civil edit summaries why you are removing material or reverting edits, I will reduce your block to time served. –xenotalk 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, go on, why not. I hereby agree to abide by established Wikipedia policy as regards harassment and personal attacks. Although I maintain that it is a breach of (at least) the spirit of WP:UNINVOLVED for an admin to block for 'false' claims of harassment against themselves. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Unblock summary got cut off - it should read: Reduce to 'time served' in light of editor's agreement to stop referring to justifiable scrutiny of their behaviour as harassment; agrees to properly and civilly explain editorial actions in edit summaries going forward; editor shall be reblocked for an indefinite period if they renege on agreement. –xenotalk 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall agreeing to an indefinite block for breach of the deal, and since I think (and I daresay you'd concur) that we have rather differing views on where the 'civility line' should be drawn, I have no confidence that you won't permablock me tomorrow for something I would consider completely negligible. If I am indefinitely blocked over this, be aware that I will (potentially) fight it tooth and nail, up to and including ArbCom if I consider it necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 17:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
If the lingering concern that you will be indefinitely (not permanently) blocked compels you to appropriately and judiciously moderate your behaviour going forward, then I find that to be an ideal situation. Should you find yourself indefinitely blocked, all reasonable manner of appeal will be available to you. What is being asked of you is not unreasonable nor is it difficult to achieve. –xenotalk 18:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that leaving my wiki-fate to your judgement is actually a rather large ask but I guess we shall see. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
We shall. Thank you for agreeing to moderate your approach. –xenotalk 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That, TreasuryTag, is implying bad faith on Xeno's part. I suggest you let this discussion cease with that comment. Ioeth (talkcontribstwinkle) 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
No it wasn't. It was very clearly implying (in fact, stating) that Xeno and I "have rather differing views on where the 'civility line' should be drawn." Therefore your remark was assuming assumptions of bad faith in a beautifully Kafkaesque logical nexus. ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that this conversation has run its course and it's high time to get back to building the encyclopedia in a pleasant and productive manner. –xenotalk 18:32, 29 August 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).
I've actually self-reverted [5][6] all of the involved pages to Sarek's version (perhaps Reaper Eternal didn't spot this until after hitting 'block'?) and was just about to file a WP:DRV regarding Sarek's rampant rollback abuse and WP:UNINVOLVED violations when I found I was blocked. Since I self-reverted a few minutes prior to the block, I trust that I can be unblocked and will pursue dispute resolution forthwith. This will include requesting an interaction ban with Sarek. If people think I need time to cool-down, perhaps we could shorten the block length to, say, 12 hours?
Decline reason:
Given that you have trampled all over your previous unblock reasons within hours, I think 10 days is actually lenient. (Edit: I see the block has been extended; that will need a separate unblock request).Black Kite (t)(c) 19:10, 29 August 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.
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).
Black Kite's response omitted to note the fact that the block was extended to 'indef'. Therefore, I would like to reiterate my request from above, and would again note that I self-reverted [7][8] all of the involved pages to Sarek's version – perhaps Reaper Eternal didn't spot this until after hitting 'block'?
Decline reason:
On what planet is it a good idea to get into an edit war like that just minutes after being unblocked? I don't necessarily agree with the upping to indef, but I would strongly recommend you take a few days off, get Wikipedia out of your system for a bit, and then I'll be willing to discuss it with you. At this particular moment, I think you're only likely to get yourself into more trouble if unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 29 August 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.
I have extended this block to indefinite duration given that TreasuryTag's disruptive behavior continued less than an hour after accepting an unblock agreement. Ioeth (talkcontribstwinkle) 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that I did not decline TT's unblock appeal completely because of the 3RR issue, but because of his ANI postings on administrator abuse, which were clearly in violation of his unblocking reasons. Black Kite (t)(c) 19:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC with declining admin) This is way beyong edit warring. This is about you breaking the terms of your unblock with regards to your behaviour towards other eitors and administrators. This is a pattern of ignoring any opposing opinions, and labelling their actions as harrasment or vandalism, followed by implying that any interveining administrator is involved. This is exactly what happened on Night Terrors (Doctor Who), so I can only endorse the block made by loeth. — Edokter (talk) — 19:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In response to this – there were multiple WP:ANI threads regarding those comments at the time, and it was resolved that they were not to be removed, let alone RevDel-ed ("This issue does not require admin attention,"). None of the RevDel criteria apply to those comments. And they should not be deleted. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 21:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
RevDel most certainly does apply. It's called RD5: "Valid deletion under Deletion Policy, executed using RevisionDelete." The MFD was closed as delete, and the deletion was performed in accordance with WP:DELETE via the revision deletion tool. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
TT is referring to some other posts that Egg Centric was asking to be revision deleted (that have not been revision deleted, and the request was since withdrawn), not the most recent deletion of revisions covered by the MFD. –xenotalk 13:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I thought he was referring to his userpage with regards to the box. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
