User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/Sep

Terms of unblock
Further to our conversation by email, I'm about to change the settings of your block to expire at 19:02 (UTC), 2 September 2011 (which is about 18 hours from now). The conditions for this are:
 * The reinstatement of your previous agreement with Xeno (to explain actions in edit summaries, and not to refer to legitimate scrutiny as harassment)
 * A prohibition on redirecting or tagging for speedy or proposed deletion any article related to Doctor Who. You may still use AfD, but are cautioned against nominating articles that have little realistic chance of being deleted.
 * A requirement that you clearly explain your rationale for any revert in your edit summary and an encouragement to make use of dispute resolution processes as an alternative to repeated reverts. Your own userspace and edits that any reasonable editor would agree constitute vandalism are excepted.
 * A requirement that any allegations of misconduct you wish to make be made on a relevant noticeboard and nowhere else (and in particular not in edit summaries)
 * Violation of these restrictions will lead to blocks of escalating duration: starting with one week, then proceeding to one month and so on. This does not impede administrators from taking what they believe to be appropriate action arising from conduct that does not fall under these restrictions.
 * These restrictions will be reviewed on or shortly after 1 January 2012 and likely lifted if there are no significant problems in the meantime. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And because it's 2am and I can't be bothered with the markup to make it exactly 19:02, you've got three minutes free. Don't let me down, TreasuryTag—I've stuck my neck out for you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement from TreasuryTag
Firstly I would like to thank very much indeed for his patient and sympathetic – and tireless! – assistance to me throughout this block, and I am very glad that we have brought it to a decent conclusion. For my part, I would like to say that I hear the voices that say I should seek out dispute resolution (or at least discussion) before wading in and repeating contested edits, and I will attempt to heed those voices in future. Thanks, ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  consulate  ─╢ 07:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear these things TT, and nice to have you back. My76Strat (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also a brief comment regarding IPBE – I frequently edit from campuses and other institutions where IP addresses are shared between absurd numbers of people and, while I've had the exemption for a long time so obviously don't know exactly how often I'd run into hardblocks, I suspect that not having it would impede my editing. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  hemicycle  ─╢ 12:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I re-added the right earlier ; users who hold this userright remain subject to standard periodic reviews to check for necessity. – xeno talk 12:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I had posted some thoughts on your page before the most recent block and unblock. I don't know if you've had a chance to think about them, but if not, I'd urge you to do so. (There is no need to respond to them on-wiki; they were meant for your own consideration, not to start any sort of debate.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like My76Strat above, I'm also glad to have you back! Cheers,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of how to leave a helpful heading for a message (by TT)
Since we are swapping editing advice, let me suggest that making significant changes to comments without updating the timestamps, as you did here and here, is less than helpful. Old Crobuzon (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it was unhelpful at all, given that you didn't respond to the comment in the intervening period. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  voice vote  ─╢ 08:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't rise to the bait, TT. Ignore it.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think TreasuryTag is right, but Shirt58's advice is good. Sometimes it's better to just let things go, even if they are wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert on Eleventh Doctor
Hi there. Please undo this revert of yours. Stephenb's edit was the R in BRD, so you should have taken it to the talk page instead of reverting him again. Also, there is already a lengthy discussion at WT:DW which is exactly about this problem, i.e. the recent changes based on in-universe narrative not backed up by any reliable source. Last but not least, the edit notice for this article says that, just like for any other page, content needs to be sourced to a reliable source. Since your edit restored in-universe information ("...ending their time as companions") not backed up by a reliable source (which all disagree with it), you should remove it again and per WP:BURDEN not re-add it without providing a source backing up this claim. Regards  So Why  21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New user
I have again removed your COI warning at User talk:Moviegoblin. That user has made a total of one edit, and the edit was good. There is no need to warn everyone who potentially may have a COI with an article, and per WP:BITE it is better to welcome new users and defer warnings until they are warranted. I see that I am the third editor to have removed your warning, so I hope it will not be necessary to make a mountain out of this trivial issue by taking it to ANI. If you have some reason for concern regarding COI, please let me know with a brief reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you can possibly find this difficult to understand. doesn't "potentially" have a conflict of interest. He has a conflict of interest. Allow me to quote to you what uw-coi actually says: If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia... — and Moviegoblin is affiliated with one of the people he has written about on Wikipedia, ie. himself. I am astonished that an allegedly experienced and competent editor would be so confused by this. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  Chief Counting Officer  ─╢ 07:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that the user stated in their edit summary that they are the person named in the blue link (the user removed the link because it went to an article about a different person with the same name). Nevertheless, the edit made by the user was good, and it is not helpful to greet them with uw-coi—as you know, Wikipedia's procedures are intended to assist building the encyclopedia, and are not a set of rules to be blindly followed. Perhaps we could agree to the conclusion that the user has a COI but does not need a warning on their talk page. I don't need talkback, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's half of a compromise; you agree and I don't. I consider that the user has a COI and therefore needs a reminder notice (which is what uw-coi is; not a warning) on their talkpage. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Regional Counting Officer  ─╢ 08:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we'll have to resume in 24 hours. If I was mistaken, so were the other two editors who removed your reminder notice. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring
Hi. I repeat my offer made at ANI to mentor you. I'd want you to think carefully before accepting, because the sting is that I think you're skating close to not just a topic ban, but a community ban... and your response to any mentoring would, in the case of a ban being proposed, obviously be closely scrutinised. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can be more specific about exactly what this mentorship would entail, I'll be able to comment more, but my current thinking is that if I'm close to being community-banned for nominating articles for deletion and failing to accurately predict the outcome, then so be it. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Not-content  ─╢ 17:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But hey, if it works, I'd like to be mentored on the topic of winning lottery numbers :-P ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Indef block
I have indef blocked you for violating your edit restrictions. You were indef blocked a month ago, but unblocked with restrictions. One of them was "A prohibition on redirecting or tagging for speedy or proposed deletion any article related to Doctor Who. You may still use AfD, but are cautioned against nominating articles that have little realistic chance of being deleted." However, the second article you AfD'ed since your unblock was Articles for deletion/2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who), which ended in speedy keep (or snow keep, if you prefer). I don't see how it is useful to let you continue editing here if you can't even use the caution wanted from you in your editing restrictions. A complete Dr. Who related ban was perhaps an option instead of an indef block, but considering that the other two concluded AfD nominations since your block (1, 2 both ended in speede/snow keep as well, I can't see much use for such a topic ban either. Fram (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__

I have raised this block for discussion at WP:ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
 * I assume you mean WP:AN. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  quaestor  ─╢ 10:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry about that. Fram (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "How is it that I can be blocked for initiating an AfD which closed as a keep?" Strange logic. It would be hard to block you for starting an AfD which closed as delete. However, there is no reason why you can't be blocked for starting AfD's which close as "speedy keep". Note also that your unblock restrictions were visible from 2 to 5 september 2011 only, and were then archived, making them basically unknown for most admins. If I had known of your editing restrictions before, I would have blocked you a few days ago, not just now. Fram (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange logic. Not really. Lawyers who sue someone and then lose in court aren't usually sanctioned. Politicians who stand for election and don't win are rarely imprisoned. Customers who make complaints to their local trading standards authority and fail to have that complaint upheld aren't often punished. Tens of AfDs are started every day. A large number of them close as 'keep'. Most of the time, the nominators aren't blocked. Therefore, my logic in the statement, "How is it that I can be blocked for initiating an AfD which closed as a keep?" is not strange. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  high seas  ─╢ 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actualy the analogy is not correct as US law allows for sanctions for frivolous litigation. Also - from your previous history - were well aware that certain AFDs would not lead to a deletion but only to drama. Repeating that behaviour is clearly disruptive. Agathoclea (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to this post at WP:AN—the edit highlighted by was indeed a violation of the unblock conditions. However, it was a genuine mistake which I reported to the unblocking admin as soon as I noticed it. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  hemicycle  ─╢ 10:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC) (copied to AN Fram (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Thank you, Sarek (and I suggest you put those words in an album because they're unlikely to be repeated...) – and I'd just like to say for the record that I think it was either reprehensibly sloppy of to overlook the "escalating blocks" clause in the terms of unblock which they obviously read, or deliberately deceptive of them to ignore it. Neither scenario is impressive. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  Acting Returning Officer  ─╢ 16:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that, if anything, a one-week block is appropriate. I don't see why we should have an article on the Christmas special in September personally, but I don't know if it had any realistic chance of being deleted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a one week block. Note however that you are bound by editing restrictions you agreed to, I am not bound by any block lengths included by HJ Mitchell in those restrictions. You are restricted, I am not. Anyway, I gave the block to the community for discussion, and the result of a one week block is fine by me. The more important issue is how you will act afterwards, and whether you have any intention of following these restrictions and staying out of trouble. Even in your unblock request, you debate whether you infracted upon your restriction, thereby ignoring the ProD highlighted by Agatoclea in the discussion as well. Fram (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are bound by editing restrictions you agreed to, I am not bound by any block lengths included. Oh, what rampant Wikilawyering. I'm actually shocked! Either you take the view (a) that the unblock conditions are simply an agreement between and myself, binding only on ourselves, or (b) that they have a more general application and should be respected  by the Wikipedia community, broadly construed. If your stance is the former, then you shouldn't have blocked me for violating them because only HJ could. That would, of course, be ridiculous. But if you take the latter position, then you should accept the whole unblocking agreement rather than just cherrypicking the bits that suit your agenda and ignoring the rest. Even in your unblock request, you debate whether you infracted upon your restriction, thereby ignoring the ProD highlighted by Agatoclea in the discussion as well. I ignored that (accidental) violation of the restrictions because that was not the reason for your block. You highlighted one particular incident as the infraction. I stated (and maintain) that it was not an infraction. In general, your behaviour with regard to this episode has been reprehensible. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  Odelsting  ─╢ 21:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable to follow the block suggestions on both sides - as they are part of the deal made - and otherwise we undermine what other admins have agreed. I would consider it extremely bad form if the block was reduced to less than a week by another admin - therefore to be fair I think the same should reasonably apply the other way. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You claim that the speedy kept AfD was not an infraction, and that all other ones (one self-reverted prod, one unreverted prod) were accidental. Could you please explain why you believed that the 2011 XMas episode AfD had a reasonable chance of getting deleted, when all previous such AfD discussions ended in keep, and you !voted strong keep in the nearly-unanimous Articles for deletion/2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who)? You were aware of the precedent, you even strongly agreed with it, but now that you have an editing restriction that cautions "against nominating articles that have little realistic chance of being deleted", you decide to start such an AfD anyway? Fram (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that Wikipedia works on the basis of case law, a principle I wasn't aware of if it's true. In 2010, I argued for 'keep' because I felt that that article was subject to adequate significant coverage by multiple secondary sources. For 2011, I felt that the article was not subject to adequate coverage by multiple secondary sources. To consider these positions incompatible would require one to consider those to articles identical. They clearly were not. I'm baffled as to why you keep bringing this up. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  draftsman  ─╢ 16:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we may be talking about the problem not the solution but at this point, the block will expire in 6 days if not lifted sooner. However, I am curious about this question myself. TT, you may have a valid point here about coverage for episodes not being independent and there are others who agree with you. However, knowing the subject like you do and knowing both how such AFDs have gone in the past and who was likely to participate in this one, did you have a reasonable expectation that this article was going to be deleted? Not "should have been deleted" but "going to be deleted". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ron: I knew that if I nominated the page for deletion, a slew of Doctor Who groupies and obsessives would come along and lobby for the article to be kept with a range of crappy WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:ITEXISTS so-called 'arguments'. However, I also thought that if the AfD was left to run its full course (which it wasn't) some sensible, uninvolved editors would turn up and provide an impartial assessment of the situation – and would see the case for deletion. By his early closure, prevented that from taking place, and now I've been blocked for a week. So trebles all round. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  draftsman  ─╢ 16:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that there is an argument for deletion that can be made wrt the 2011 Christmas special and there are some editors, such as ROUX and Griswaldo, who agree with you. I consider myself an inclusionist so it's not one I agree with (but perhaps the article was created a bit too early) but an argument can be made and in principle, you should have been allowed to make it without any hassle. However, I am a little concerned about you referring to those defending the article as "groupies and obsessives". I'm not too crazy about the term "fanboy" either. These are editors who write about what interests them and it's expected that they will defend what they write. They should also be allowed to make their arguments without any hassle. Your editing restrictions were not made because you are a "deletionist" but because you are sometimes aggressive toward those who !vote "keep" in your AFDs. If unblocked, or when this current block expires, I would recommend that you not nominate any fiction related articles for deletion for a while. If they truly need to go then somebody else will nominate them. When you return to AFD, just simply state your case, see who agrees with you, and let the closing admin decide who has the strongest case. It's not necessary to respond to every single "keep" !vote. Also, in my view, there was nothing wrong with the Simon Fisher-Becker AFD. The article is a BLP (and currently has no inline sources) so it needs to meet WP:N or it needs to go. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * With greatest respect to all involved here, we're talking about the problem, not a solution to the problem. Fram, HJM, Eraserhead1, TT: could we please stop discussing the block, the AfD hoo-hahs, the everything else in the past with silver balls on top, and concentrate on how TT can resume positively contributing to the project?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that TT basically claims that there is no problem with his editing, of course... Fram (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I aim, below, to address that, and your excellent point too, Shirt. As well as many others. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've received another abusive email: please block account
has sent me yet another delightful missive. Please could someone hardblock their account without email and talkpage access? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  pikuach nefesh  ─╢ 17:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I think you need better mail filters. :-(-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've cooled off; fresh unblock request

 * My opinion is that the question isn't "would the AfD have resulted in keep", which we can't clearly answer -- it's "would the AfD run on December 26th have resulted in delete", which I'm pretty sure we know the answer to. It's that second question that made this disruptive, not the first one. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. And equally, if the 2096 Summer Olympics page is nominated for deletion, that action would also be disruptive because if the AfD took place in 2097 the result would be 'keep'? Come off it. The standard for inclusion is significant coverage, not 'probably some significant coverage at some unspecified future point'. Otherwise we need to start creating articles for 3045 United Kingdom general election, Death of Barack Obama, 6924 Paralympics, Coronation of King Charles III of the United Kingdom etc. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  draftsman  ─╢ 23:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you're not aware, a topic ban proposal has been started at WP:AN. I or another editor will be happy to copy over or transclude a comment on your behalf if you post one here, although from a strategic perspective you may be better off not commenting on it, all things considered. 28bytes (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this edit seems to be pretty much disruptive and contrary to WP:BURO. The subject of the article is flagrantly non-notable. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is helping you in any way you might seriously regard as "helping" --Dweller (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to help myself, I was trying to place on the record my concerns that an administrator has been engaging in disruptive editing. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Osbert  ─╢ 09:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd be so good as to copy this over? If the proposed topic-ban pertains only to articles about fictional things that haven't yet come into fruition, then it is based on one single instance alone of (I would argue non- ) disruptive behaviour – which seems a rather stupid basis for a topic-ban. But yeah, go for it, whatever. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Osbert  ─╢ 09:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to WP:AN comment by ; please can someone copy it over—This is the most stupid idea I have ever heard, except perhaps for the one about demolishing London and replacing it with a giant Butlins. It is simply Egg Centric piggy-backing onto the existing topic-ban proposal with a complaint completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, trying to have me sanctioned and generally trying to get at me as he has done so many times before. Please could someone close his latest inane suggestion before it wastes further energy? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  without portfolio  ─╢ 16:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Both comments copied per your request. 28bytes (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * TT, it was brought to my attention off-wiki that the deletion-related restrictions aren't your only violations&mdash;accusing other editors of disruptive editing is not on (especially when you're the one who's violating restrictions!). The agreement we made is the only thing standing between you and an indefinite block; if I were you, I would be making a concious effort not to push the boundaries of the restrictions but to stay the fuck away from those boundaries so that no interpretation of them could lead anybody to think you've violated them. As editing restrictions go, these are very lightweight&mdash;if you can't follow a restriction on the methods of deletion you can use in a topic area and a slightly more stringent version of NPA, then part of me wonders why I bothered sticking my neck out to get you unblocked in the first place. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record - it wasn't me. I had decided to ignore the remark as anyone (well most) looking at the article in question would understand my reasoning. Agathoclea (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)