TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · count) I pledged to undergo an Editor Review because I was assured by several people that they had a thing or two to say to me, so here it is, the forum for all that. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 08:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I do a fair amount gnome-type work on numerous articles, correcting mistakes where I see them and adding sources where I come across them. I'm also very involved in WikiProject Doctor Who, and have created several articles including Municipal year, Osmotherly Rules and Oklahoma primary electoral system.

3. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I suspect that this is the subject on which my 'friends' would like to offer their views, so I'll reserve comment for the moment.

Reviews

• One problem is that you tend to be very unCIVIL in your edit summaries -- "oh please", "Grammar is difficult, isn't it. As is our policy on original research. Apparently.", and "for fuck's sake" being fairly recent examples. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst not being an overt vandal or troll (by the content of their edits), this editor has to be one of the most abrasive I've yet encountered. They're pretty much the canonical wikilawyer, knowing just how to game the system without going too far and getting caught in the backlash themselves.

A recent example is here, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist, wherein our 'part time teacher of Jewish Studies' manages to defend a pro-Nazi userbox on the grounds that he doesn't understand it. He defends it so well and whips up such a storm over it that he manages to get the original nominator blocked.

We don't need drama llamas like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't had many interactions with Treasury Tag, but I've seen the amount of drama he causes, and I have to wonder if it's disproportionate to the good that comes from his contributions to the encyclopaedia. From what I've seen, he has particular problems with our civility policy ('Get stuffed' for instance), and as noted above, has a considerably abrasive manner that tends to provoke or inflame disputes rather than resolving them. He seems to enjoy the 'drama' side of Wikipedia, judging by how often he starts contentious AFDs and posts on noticeboards such as WP:ANI and WP:WQA, and frequently calls out other users for violating the rules while rarely if ever admitting fault himself. He has strong views on notability and becomes frustrated when other users don't share them. Overall, I'd have to say he comes close to being a tendentious editor, and I doubt whether he has the competence to contribute to Wikipedia effectively. His history so far suggests not. Robofish (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• TT , you can be and are mostly a constructive useful contributor, the edit summaries are letting you down, users don't like them - even if you feel someone is this or that just keep it under your hat, don't insult and demean in edit summaries at all - it just weakens your position. Loss of temper control (or that it at least seems) and the choice you make to continue a dispute when you need to learn to just accept there is some small dispute and learn to either walk away and let it dissolve on its own or go back in a couple of days and apologize and make up. Sometimes you need to see earlier you are on a loser/or just mistaken - we are all mistaken sometimes or sitting on the wrong side of the fence. Do what you do best more of the time, your gnome work and other low controversy project improvement - realize its not so important and take the longer picture, say, ok...and go back to it in a few days and look again. Be a bit more friendly - we are here to enjoy and improve the project in small ways as we are able, if you can overcome these small issues you will become a much more beneficial and respected wikipedian, so enjoy, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't actually enjoy finding fault in others, but as this is a request for input I'll try to provide what I believe to be constructive feedback. First, I will say that I do find TT to be intelligent, and fully clued as far as our policies go.

OK, I'll start with the AfD stuff. Admittedly I'm much less a deletionist than TT, but beyond that I think his constant replies and debates to almost everyone who doesn't see things his way tends to come across as badgering and petulant.

Second: If TT requests a comment to a certain point, and that is not directly responded to - he tends to keep at that same point time and time again. There's no need to link to the same things multiple times in the same thread, repeating what he/you've said the first time. In other words, if an editor doesn't respond to your liking, then drop the stick.

The edit summary thing is another place to look, but I think Rob said it every bit as well as I could have, so I'll just say "Per Off2" on that point.

Now what I consider to be the biggest issue. "Tone" All to often you write in a conversational tone of voice that is fine in a social gathering with friends, but the internet and the written word don't translate those things well. Remember, once you commit to that save page button, your comment is there for all time, and for all to see. Type your replies as if you are doing an actual article in as NPOV a manner as possible. When you type something like: "I don't think you understand" and then link it to WP:DICK (not a diff, just an example), it comes off as extremely rude, snide, and snarky. So of course you're going to get a snide comment in return. You have to be willing to take as well as you give in that respect. We are a diverse project with a wide range of ages, genders, religions, cultures, backgrounds, and beliefs. That said; it stands to reason that not everyone is going to interpret things exactly the same. Not even clearly worded policy. It's fine to disagree with someone, but don't dance around the edges of civility and NPA stuff. Stay out of that gray area, and try to be nice to your fellow editors. It's much easier to persuade someone of your point of view if you don't antagonize them with your first response.

Thank you for your time, and I wish you the best with this effort. As I said, I think you are an intelligent person, and capable of being one of our most valuable editors. I suspect that should I meet you in a bar (or pub), that we could enjoy a great conversation and a good friendship. — Ched :  ?  16:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure there will be no shortage of people dropping by to offer, shall we say, constructive criticism. So I won't do that. Instead, I'll just offer a thumbs-up at your decision to open yourself up to feedback like this, and note that you do indeed appear to be quite well-versed in policy, which is something to be applauded. 28bytes (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking the advice to "Focus on tangible and "doable" things TT can do to address the problems other users find with his edits" I do have two suggestions relating to the WP:FFD process. One - TT only nominates an image for deletion once and if it is kept to accept the result - if the image is truly NFCC non-compliant someone else will renonominate it in any event. Two - TT undertakes to always nominate the uploader of the image as a matter of courtesy as he's previously not done so as technically it's not mandatory. Exxolon (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have a second suggestion and I think this is by far the most constructive thing that TT can do. If TT nominates anything for deletion, be it an article, file or anything else TT states the reason he believes the item should be deleted in his opening statement, then DOESN'T COMMENT FURTHER. If someone else votes to keep, even if TT thinks their reasoning is flawed TT doesn't comment on their vote. Leave it up to the judging admin to weigh the quality of the arguments. The current brouhaha at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_June_21#File:Sussecoatofarms.jpg could have been completely avoided if TT hadn't responded to BQZip01's keep rationale leading to an ridiculous back and forth argument that has acheived nothing. Exxolon (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• My comment is pretty brief: Just please try to avoid addressing/attacking people rather than issues. Key here is not taking disagreements to heart. I've looked over your more recent contributions and what I see is a largely good editor that just seems to get too intense and personal on a fairly regular basis. If that issue went away I'd _still_ disagree with you on a lot of stuff, but that doesn't bother me much. Being nice to others (even those you disagree with or think little of) is generally a more successful strategy in any case. In all cases, I wish you well with this. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree on much of the above. I ask you to visualise some AfD debates where one of us inclusionists has replied to many posts, and how off-putting some folks find it. Ditto going the other way - trying to get the last word is generally counterproductive. really counterproductive Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• accusing me of what you admit doing yourself is hypocritical. Just as you see problems there, so I saw frequent violations of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground as well as clumsy use of AWB, and hence allowable as "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" under Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding policy. I could dredge out the AWB issues and messages others have left but I am not going to waste time at this venue arguing the point if you're going to protest. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment probably will come as no surprise to you - it's about communication. I think many of the problems you've encountered boil down to communication. Some are difficult to be precise about: when is replying in AfDs "debate" and when does it become "badgering". But others are easier and the main comment I'd make to you is about changing the way you use usertalk pages - particularly your own. Your archiving of some material almost instantly, often with a terse edit summary, comes across as very aggressive and it is not good for developing communal working. Telling editors you're in dispute with not to post to your talk page is not good for communal working. Arguing tenaciously, responding to attack with attack, and insisting on getting the final word in is not good for communal working. Now, it could be that you're not suitable for communal working, in which case Wikipedia isn't the place for you. But I don't believe that to be the case - if I did, I wouldn't be wasting my time with you. You're a good, hardworking, passionate editor with some rough edges. I'm delighted that you seem to be open to smoothing those edges. Good luck with the process and good on you for opening yourself up to comment in this way. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's suppose that you've opened this ER because you're concerned there might be an issue with your editing style. Following the comments so far, you might suspect that your interactions with others are under particular scrutiny. So even during this review, how do you explain a response like this? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what I mean about battleground and point-scoring. More embarrassing is that it is wrong. See next entry below it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me provide one major example of what's really wrong with your editing: this. You bring bad attention to yourself by making flippant comments, which then escalate into further altercations. Then, when you're already in full-fledged battles that the wise individual would think to themself "Oooh, I went to far", you continue to pile it on. You're master of your own reputation, which is not a good one. Focus on editing; stop making any smartass edit-summary or comment and stop looking for the bad in people you're already in altercation with, anywhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You've been told you are rude, and you don't believe it, or don't believe it matters. You're wrong. It matters very much. Please leave the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the old saying about when you realise you're in a hole, it's time to stop digging? Here we are at editor review, yet TT is still making edits & edit summaries like this: Just go away

If you're not even prepared to tone down your abrasiveness when you're still at ER, what's the point in asking? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• TreasuryTag has had problems both with conduct and with content. First the conduct.

  In recent months, I've noticed a disproportionate number of ANI threads involving TreasuryTag, some of which he started, some of which were started about him. The ones he starts (sometimes at Village pump rather than ANI) have struck a lot of people, myself included, as passive aggressive, as he asks a question in the abstract so as to get agreement out of context on some issue he has with what someone else said, rather than directly and calmly dealing with it or just letting it go. He escalates conflict rather than defusing or resolving it. He often tries to get the last word, and he responds with sarcasm to people who are already clearly upset with him. I have no problem with a little snark, but you should avoid it, given the negative social climate you've helped create around you, and the difficulty you have getting your comments read as humorous.

  Most editors do not attract a lot of negative attention, regardless of where they participate. Plenty of people manage to list articles or images for deletion, for example, without generating drama or ill will. At some point you have to take responsibility for that, because it ultimately comes down to the manner with which you interact with people. And you have to learn that you're not going to win every content dispute, no matter how much you think you may be right. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, Wikipedia:The Last Word, Wikipedia:Just drop it.

  On the content issue, the ANI thread in which editor review was first suggested to him revealed that on numerous occasions, he has removed content just because it is unsourced at present, when it was in fact not only correct but easily sourceable, in one instance from an article that was directly linked from the content he removed. Maybe others have noticed this in some of his AFD nominations as well? Obviously bad content needs to be cleared out, but we need to take the time to fix it in the best possible way, not just the quickest way at the time. If you can't take that time, then leave it alone and someone else will take care of it.

  A few suggestions:

  1) If you are having difficulty participating in a particular area without getting pissed off and without pissing others off, you should take a long break from that area and participate somewhere else.

  2) Accept the fact that a lot of editors don't like you and may never like you. You're not going to change that by criticizing or mocking them. Assuming you want to turn over a new leaf, it's going to take time before attitudes toward you change. Which isn't to say that you deserve personal attacks or incivility. But in most cases the best way to deal with it may be to ignore it, to walk away. Your view of it may be an overreaction, or even if you're not overreacting others will see it for what it is, without your characterization or response escalating the matter. Or ask another editor or admin on their talk page (not in another ANI or other public thread) to take a look and intervene if they deem it necessary.

  3) Spend more time on article creation and expansion. I've noticed that a lot of editors whose XFD or other process/administrative-based participation causes undue drama tend to do little or nothing else. From what I can tell, this may be less true of TreasuryTag than others. But not even counting FFD or DRV, the ratio of deletion discussions he's started to new articles he's created is still roughly nine to one. Overly focusing on content removal can make you less sympathetic to the editors who contributed it, and can make you less able to see potential. See Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion. And it also comes back to #1. If you can't start or participate in an XFD without drama or ill will, then you need to stop doing it. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• More Great Books. Less Doctor Who. Wiki has too much pop culture and is weak on real reference work.TCO (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've occasionally found you disagreeable, and have gotten into a number of fights with you. I believe that other people have expressed better what I feel in this. Ched says it well. Other than that, the only thing that comes to mind is your signature, where the text on the right ranges from obscure and confusing personal jokes to statements that, in the wrong context, can be seen as quite hostile. Looking at User:TreasuryTag/sig, 37 is especially in need of being removed, and 34 and 38 have come up at inopportune times in conversations. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, what can I say that might help you mend your ways? I am pretty much exactly like you. I'm mostly a wikignome, I am a deletionist (which I actually believe is a wikipolitically laden term and an intentionally wrongful description of people who have higher inclusion standards -- I think of "deletionists" like myself and TT as better inclusionists), I don't suffer fools gladly, I'm shorttempered, I'm abrasive, I have difficulties letting things that grind my gears slide (let alone disengaging from heated exchanges once I'm committed to them), I frequently suffer from the insurmountable urge to get in the last word, I am quite often a dick (and having a hard time resisting to add the meta link, but when all is said and done a dick is a dick is a dick).
  So what could I possibly contribute to this ER that might actually be of help to TT? Why do even I care? He reminds me so much of myself that I couldn't even eat as much as I'd like to vomit. Here's why: As abrasive as he appears, as intellectually dominating as he likes to think he is (when he sometimes is, and sometimes isn't), as much as he is in love with his supposed wit, subtletly, and firm grasp of policy, if he is anything like me, he has below all that a heart of gold, and only the best interests of the project in mind.
  He is a failed leader, because while he understands the more abstract layers of this project (and if I had to take a wild guess, not just this project), he is simply not a people's person -- most of the time. He is a highly sensitive person, with a distinctly OCD flavour and some grandiosity to round things off, and has the harmfully uncompromising sense of justice and correctness to go with it. Realised here is one of the possible outcomes when people like us meet -- a fuckfest of dicks. But it doesn't have to be like that. I am quite convinced that next to his insecurity-betraying intellectual pride, there is a nice guy, who is as adamantly fair in giving acknowledgement where acknowledgement is due as he is genuine and intellectually honest. The fact that especially the latter is a virtue virtually unknown or secretly laughed at and frowned upon in communities like Wikipedia is not his fault. This may sound weird to some, but if the project worked more like TT would like it to, it would be that much better.
  And there it is. I believe this is the best I can contribute to this ER: At least trying to give him the reassurance that he is not a misunderstood genius. Neither a genius, nor completely misunderstood.
  That said, the worst you could possibly do to the project is to leave it to itself. The worst way you can possibly treat fools is to ignore them. As hard as it may appear when someone says something outrageously dishonest or stupid, like many have noted above, the best course of action is to focus on the factual side of things. One generally useful piece of my personal experience that I can offer you is to type all that you really want to say into the edit window. Let it all out. Destroy that moron with words, take him or her apart, leave nothing standing. And then boil it all down to just the factual stuff. It may seem like swallowing a ball of fire at first, but I promise you will soon notice how much more efficiently you will get what you actually want: Yielding intellectual recognition and positive influence on the project.
  If none of the above makes sense to TT, I'm sorry for wasting our times. --87.79.209.115 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I will be completely honest and frank here- I think you should get a hobby outside of editing Wikipedia. You are abrasive, rude, prone to WP:WIKILAWYERING and stir up entirely unnecessary drama. Good luck in the future. :) Basket of Puppies 19:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Although TT may not be the most popular editor on Wikipedia, as a media-file specialist, I have found his work to be invaluable to the project. TT knows what he's doing, and people should give him credit for that. I disagree with many of the comments above, claiming TT to be rude and abrasive; I have always found him to be both insightful and amicable. TT, my advice to you: keep up the great work and don't piss off the wrong people. Have a good one. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't had any interactions with TT but I have seen him interacting with others (I read a lot more pages than I edit) I am in general agreement with the other comments regarding past behavior, but a lot more hopeful about future behavior for one simple reason: it is a lot easier to get someone who is smart to be nice than it is to get someone who is nice to be smart. TT has not been very nice, but he is smart, and he can decide to change his behavior patterns. The act of asking for an editor review makes me think that perhaps he is ready to do so. Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Every time I have interacted with TT or witnessed him interacting with others his poor comportment has impeded editing or discussion or whatever was going on at the time. The IP editor above gives excellent advice: type whatever you really want to say, but don't press "Save page" until you've erased all the comments about editors and the snide remarks and gotten to the bare facts. If you miss the drama and the heady back and forths, well, there's always the online comment section of your local newspaper to fill the hole. Danger (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had only limited interaction with TT, but I've become familiar with his moniker in recent weeks because I've seen it pop up all over the various noticeboards. That's not a good thing. Reviewing his contributions, I see some thoughtful quality work on content. However, I also see an awful lot of needless wikidrama, most of it instigated or fueled by TT's actions. I also see some excessive eagerness in some of the content work; for example, although this CSD tag had merit and the article was speedied, it is unseemly for a newbie's first -- and apparently good-faith -- contribution to be tagged for speedy deletion just 8 minutes after it was started using the Article Wizard. Others above have given good advice on communications, which need not be repeated. As a general comment, I'd say that TT needs to calm down. And try to stay away from administrator's noticeboards -- the over-stimulation they provide can be hazardous to your health. ;-) Another general piece of advice is to try to avoid personalizing your comments -- try to focus on the what, not the who. --Orlady (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid that from my own experience, I can only reiterate the many comments above. Especially snarky comments and misuse of edit summaries. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely unpleasant to deal with. Throws capital letters (usually starting WP-colon) at you along with vague threats and wikistalking. Have just found this editor review and am glad to see I am not alone in finding this with TT, in future I will not expend as much effort trying to reason with them. And since my interactions with them started well after the start of this editor review I hold out no expectation of improvement, but you never know... Egg Centric 15:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Furthermore, I note they've been keeping a personal attack against another editor on their talk page, which I have removed. I have also templated them to remind them of policy, on the basis the template will be better than a personal message, appeals to policy being more likely to work than appeals to decent behaviour. Egg Centric 21:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Alas, I think that TT is a net negative to wikipedia at times, because the abrasiveness, and the remarkable ability to provoke drama in others, outweigh the content contributions. Sometimes it's better to ease off a little, because the disagreeable opinions you see on a screen are not evils which must be vanquished, but other people who also want to improve wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that if TT could find ways to focus more on content and less on other editors, that would be a very positive move (for TT, for other editors, and for the content of course). bobrayner (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've run into you a few times at AfD and seen you while perusing ANI from time to time, and here's my honest opinion of you thus far: I think that you do a lot of good work, but tend to make some mistakes in your interactions with others. Wikipedia does need gadflies, but it is common for people who seek that role to go too far. I've seen you do a lot of things that benefit the project, but at times I think you press the save button without properly considering the effects of your comments. (I've been guilty of that a time or two myself!) We all have a way to benefit the project the most, so try to identify what that is for you and then focus on it as best you can. I think that you have the knowledge and skill to someday be an Administrator, (damning by faint praise, I know) but you might want to re-consider some of your editing practices. Overall though, I think that you are a net-benefit to the project and I hope that you do not retire anytime soon. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I have also had a run in with you and my only comment is vindictive if you don't get your own way.