The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Consensus is that the offending portion of the page to be deleted (and obviously not re-added) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:TreasuryTag[edit]

User:TreasuryTag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

“

Editors are reminded to be courteous during this discussion, and ensure that civility and policy-based arguments are the key to this process (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

”

TreasuryTag has been asked by several editors to remove the box starting with "TreasuryTag is inactive ...", followed by what amounts to a list of those with whom he's had conflict, linked with descriptive interpretations. This kind of list has been generally frowned upon as uncontributive to the encyclopedia, as a violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC. The list reappears on his talkpage. There was a discussion on AN/I [1] a couple of days ago, in which I stated that I'd nominate the content for deletion in two days if TT didn't remove it himself. AN/I consensus (and my own opinion) ran against summary removal, so I've placed it here for in-process debate. Only the orange box is being nominated. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per SK2(4) – "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course" – plus SK1 and [[WP:ATD. Or, failing that, strong keep due to the fact that the material in question is not personal attacks, but merely an accurate description, with evidence, of various behaviour that I have encountered on Wikipedia. For instance, to describe this as a veiled insult is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. To describe this as a slur on my character is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. To describe this vile comment as baying for blood is not a personal attack. It is a very restrained statement of fact. And to describe this block ("I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit-warring – I've not looked at any of the content") as 'desperately poor' seems reasonable, and 'lazy' seems even more so.
  I also note numerous editors at ANI who have opined that the content is acceptable.
  Make no mistake, I'm not surprised that Nyttend wants to delete all negative references to their admin action, but that doesn't make such a course of action appropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend is not the impetus of this MfD, nor am I aware of any attempts to canvas meatpuppets to advance any position in particular. While it may be your prerogative to interpret his actions regarding your block as "lazy", it is a stretch away from AGF to assert this MfD, or the expressed concerns of others, are his agenda. IMO- My76Strat (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This MfD is to consider deleting the entire page. Yet in the nomination it is clarified as pertaining to specific content. MfD is the wrong venue according to SK#4 as shown above. IMO - My76Strat (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a July 2010 discussion about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 5#Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages?. Cunard (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was 8-) "Support [Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages?]—there's really absolutely no practical reason not to. It's convenient. So let's do it." - by someone called "Treasury Tag". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the subject of this MFD that this is a proper venue too. There's no reason not to discuss it here; there really isn't a better place. Buffs (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I will concur that this venue is proper, I mean to assert that there are other reasons I wish to remain as keep, namely as enunciated by Fastily below. My76Strat (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Treasury Tag's "Get out of jail free" card for his right to repeatedly host personal attacks on his userpage is looking far too worn and dog-eared. How many other editors would get away with this? (How many other editors would even be inclined to do so?) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the box from the user page, but let him keep it on his talk page. It serves only to disrupt. It's disruptive enough for the confusion it nay cause, and the content makes the potential for disruption much more serious. --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the box from userspace. Regardless of whether MfD is an appropriate venue for this discussion (I think it can be justified based on Cunard's link above, and I can't think of a better venue) the box violates WP:UP#POLEMIC because it is "the recording of perceived flaws". This kind of material is acceptable for short-term hosting in userspace if it is being prepared for some kind of dispute resolution process, but I see no indication that this is the case here. Maintaining content like this doesn't produce a good editing environment and only serves to increase tension. Hut 8.5 19:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This most certainly is the "recording of perceived flaws", and it doesn't look like it will be used in a dispute resolution any time soon. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Permanently recording and ranting about perceived flaws seems to violate WP:CIVIL in many ways. TreasuryTag may not like it removed, but there appears to be quite a consensus to remove it from his talk and pages. Seeing as he doesn't own the pages, I think it only appropriate to remove it from the page since consensus is against this editor keeping it and he should be admonished for trying to edit war against consensus. Buffs (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TreasuryTag is disappointed with the way Wikipedia is run, and he is fully entitled to that opinion. Every single delete !vote thus far embodies WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The box is neither disruptive nor is it blatant attack on anyone. If you don't agree with it, don't read it. It's just that simple. There is hardly a need to censor a valid opinion, no matter how controversial. Honestly, I really can't even begin to comprehend why everyone is so invested in kicking the shit out of a poor guy who's already down. Grow up people. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fastily, that is the most eloquent prose I have ever seen you append. You really should write using the deeper thoughts, as in this example, than the shorter dismissive variants I have seen in the past. To me they are just easier to understand, and/or condone. My76Strat (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While the entire notice may not be an attack, there are attacks within the "going away" message. User pages are for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users. An unchallengeable "going away" message isn't constructive as far as encyclopedia building goes. It's just excuse and accusation with no reason. --Onorem♠Dil 04:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (NB. this is an acceptable use of MfD: Is the page, as opposed to the behaviour, acceptable). Leaving statements especially have a lot of leeway (if he fails to leave, he needs to move his complaint to a proper dispute resolution forum). The statement is sufficiently not an attack against others, but a statement of the users feelings in reference to the project/system/community generally. There is no doubt that the statement is a disgruntled editors point of view, and it should be accepted as such. It is not a disallowed POLEMIC that purports to make a case against individuals, except maybe for calling someone lazy, named if you follow the link. However, the user is not trying to highlight his perceived flaw in an individual, but to make a collective statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The user's departure is unconvincing. It's therefore not a leaving statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons given above 195.43.48.142 (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The !vote above was deleted by ╟─TreasuryTag─╢ in this edit with the edit summary "rvt malicious editing of my !vote". I have restored it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC. I've reverted this up to 3 times and 3 times TT has restored it. It violates WP:UP#POLEMIC, CIVIL, SOAPBOX. Enough already. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 14:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per valid reasons given above - no need to censor an already semi-retired user's disappointment of Wikipedia. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It depends - if either (a) the linking of other editors/incidents (and therefore the personal attacks on specific editors, including myself, and I perceive them as personal attacks and I don't think you should ignore that) is removed, making it textual rather than hypertextual (and I think this is something some of the keep !voters above are missing out on) or (b) Treasury Tag actually genuinely goes away rather than claiming to be retired (and therefore in my view is allowed more latitude than a practising editor as permitting full frankness in leaving statements is wise policy - it is a very foolish manager indeed who chastens an employee during an exit interview) then the statement could be allowed to stay. Otherwise it should be removed as personal attacks. And for what it's worth as the user is a well known wikilawyer, I mean of course the spirit and not necessarily the letter of proposals (a) and (b) (e.g. removing all links and then saying "why not click here to see the uncensored version" with a link to the previous version in the history would not be acceptable; conversely retiring but very occasionally making edits from an IP and in general not getting involved in wiki policy would be perfectly fine - indeed it would of course be fine to come back entirely at some point in the future and remove the statement (and if said point was far enough in the future, say 4 years 9 months, the statement could probably be kept as a historical relic)) Egg Centric 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The user is a well known wikilawyer – well I would respectfully disagree. Are you the person who claims that my words were personal attacks? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And you are the person who claims I've attacked you. Indeed it seems we both hold a very similar viewpoint - we both believe we have pointed out obvious facts and we both also beleive the other user has in fact maliciously insulted the other. Certainly that is my position, and it's what you claim to believe and against my better judgement I will assume good faith. Clearly we will never see eye to eye. Stick to the subject, others will judge.

  P.S. I received an email ages ago from someone who will remain anonymous telling me to be careful as you were a wikilawyer par excellence. So I believe I could substantiate the statement (indeed I could substantiate every statement I've made, I believe, although this supposes some kind of setting where truth trumped privacy, it was of massive import, I had a great deal of time and unlimited powers of discovery etc etc) Egg Centric 17:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to be disrespectful TT. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I presume you don't consider, "The user is a well known wikilawyer," to be disrespectful then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Osbert─╢ 08:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We're required to be WP:CIVIL to you, not to have any respect for your actions. Have you earned any? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) I was responding to a comment which said, "No need to be disrespectful TT," from which I inferred that there was an expectation editors behave respectfully to each other. Now you have clarified that there is not, I need not hold back from informing you that I will not be continuing this line of discussion as per WP:DFTT. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 10:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not someone else's comment is/is not civil is irrelevant. My comment is regarding your lack of civility. You have gone out of your way to make an statement in which you explicitly phrased that you intend to be disrespectful. That is not civil in any book. Furthermore, you seem to believe that civility is only required of others and not yourself. The rules apply to everyone, not everyone other than you.

  As for his comment, I can see that calling someone a "wikilawyer" could be considered offensive, but it is an opinion that could also be accurate. I could easily see both sides on this one and simply caution EC to use more precise terminology which lends itself more readily to civil dialogue between Wikipedians (though I'm not the only one who finds that you are quick to be offended and even quicker to offend). Buffs (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that "the canonical wikilawyer" was only the second comment at your Editor Review, it's hardly an obscure description. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep I've said it before and I'll say it again. No policy anywhere on Wikipedia requires everyone to get along. You can even speak up, yes even if you disagree with policy or consensus! There is also no policy against using diffs to support a point of view. I am disturbed to the extreme by an increasing policy on MfD (see the discussion of Adminwatch) that any accounting of wrongdoing is wrong to keep, always, ever, OMG. Users have a right to support arguments, any argument, with diffs. If you've said it, you've said it. diffs are never, ever wrong to catalog if you said something you're ashamed of: shame on you for saying it, not shame on them for keeping a record of it! It is wrong to delete mere cataloging of diffs as "attack pages" or "shit lists" they are no such thing, they are a neutral recording of an event as the parties themselves said. The way this is presented is borderline uncivil, but as argument and argument again has shown here- borderline incivility is A-okay (see the MfD of WP:DICK). So throwing out concerns over mild incivility and keeping of diffs as having "a shit list" there is no argument to delete other than "this user is unpopular and I don't like what they have to say" and as a result, I must vote to keep to resist the damnatio memorae treatment towards an editor that quit the project. Note: I don't know this user or why they quit, they could have been a real jerk for all I care, I'm not aware I ever knew them well, but certain principles bear defending. So in case the user happened to be rightfully chased off, I do not support their views only their right to say them. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a huge difference between citing diffs as evidence during a dispute resolution, and using them with accompanying insults/personal attacks in a childish tantrum. 195.43.48.140 (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after deleting all the words and cites after "inactive" as being exceedingly not conducive to collegial editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close This is the wrong venue for seeking to remove part of the contents of a page (and keep it removed) which is what the nomination requests ("Only the orange box is being nominated"). I see some editors have suggested "delete" but have gone on to say that they are only referring to part of the page. In other cases I am not clear what form of deletion is being advocated. I think the nomination should be closed and normal editing and disciplinary action used. If anyone thinks the entire page should be deleted they should submit a proper MfD. Thincat (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular view on the technicalities other to note that a) that almost no one agrees with you. Indeed, even Treasury Tag disagrees per Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 5#Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages? and b) no one wants to go on a huge forum shopping expedition. It's wasted a ludicrous amount of my preciously limited wiki time. This has to stop somewhere. Egg Centric 20:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's wasted a ludicrous amount of my preciously limited wiki time. This has to stop somewhere. Actually, you are the one wasting your own time. If you didn't personally make the decision to pursue this issue like a bloodhound (see WP:STICK) then you wouldn't have had to spend any time on it. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 21:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks.... Branches.... Olive Branches.... You have "banned" me from your talk page, and I take that to mean your email too, which is why I am not emailing this, but putting it here. However if you permit me to I will email you with my phone number (or you can email me if you like) and perhaps we can meetup and maybe we'll get along like a house on fire in real life, since we live in the same city. So much silliness and it could all be down to electornic communication. I don't like to have arguments and I am pretty sure we are not so dissimilar. Seriously, how about grabbing a coffee? I am totally open to that and am free most of this weekend. I know you won't take this as one, but for the avoidance of doubt for other people looking at it, this is not a physical threat - it's a genuine offer. Egg Centric 21:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, it's exceptionally clear what is being referred to here - if you or indeed anyone else is confused then I apologise for lack of clarity on my behalf or anyone else's who has not been clear and please just ask and I will explain things as I see them - I appreciate for totally uninvolved users this may be more confusing than I can imagine it being) Egg Centric 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I have replied to your message on my talk page here. Thincat (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the box - blatant violation of WP:NPA. This kind of content - essentially an extended polemic against other users - is not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. The rest of the userpage is fine and can stay. Robofish (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (remove box) - I was just about to !vote "Keep", since the box's general effect is to reflect badly on its author, and if an editor wants to do that to himself, who are we to stop him? Then I realized that the links go to specific comments by other editors, which makes it an attack page, which is not allowed. Without those links, it's just some guy's opinion, bordering on polemic but not really over the line, with them it's a straight-forward no-brainer to delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How is recording what someone said a personal attack. If I say "User X is an asshat" and someone says "see, hominidmachinae says users are asshats!" that's not a personal attack it's the verifiable truth. Neither is someone says "there's too much incivility on Wikipedia" and linking to me calling someone an asshat as an example. If users see their own words as a personal attack on them then shame on them for saying it not shame on this user for reporting/recording it. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  He did not simply record what someone said, he characterized it in negative terms in the link text. That is where he attack is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ. To label this as "harassment" is nothing more than a factual description. To label this as a "personal attack" is nothing more than a factual description. To label this as "me being compared to Richard Nixon" is nothing more than a factual description. To label this as "lynch-mob behaviour" is nothing more than a factual description. To label this as a "desperately poor block" is pretty much a factual description, although if you disagree, then it is nevertheless a reasonable opinion I am entitled to state.
  Just because the so-called editors I am criticising don't want their misdemeanours publicised, is not a reason to delete them. Quite the reverse, in fact. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 08:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is just an opinion showing TT's frame of mind, no one is being directly attacked here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per defense of "lynch-mob behavior" above as "factual description".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  [2] – ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 19:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Treasury, you once said regarding the exact content of this MfD that you would consider suggestions to change the comments to a different form. On reasonable suggestion here was that you simply de-link the comments to a targeted diff for example. To what extent would you be willing to modify your own user page, so that we all can move past this frivol? My76Strat (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the top box as polemic and leave the rest alone. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - remove the section on conflicts, but no need to delete the entire page. Was this MfD really neccessary? GiantSnowman 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TT could have made this MfD moot at any point by removing the controversial section. As he has so far refused to do so, then yes, this MfD does appear necessary. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's his userpage. Who cares if he tries to get a parting shot across the bow on the way out? This MfD is just more drama, should be speedily closed and everyone should move on to other things (like writing the book). 134.241.58.253 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out, long-term disruptive troll IP, now blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per lot of keep voters, particularly Fastily, TT and Some Wiki Editor. I don't think how people are treating TT is appropriate. I have to say I am also having some concerns and issues with respect from the community. To be truthful, I think the community needs to shapen up. Personally, I also think that nobody should be viewing "lazy" as "negative" or "insulting" or "scolding" or "criticisms". -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Porch corpter. Sad to see some seem to want to attack a generally constructive and likeable editor such as Treasury Tag. Suggest it might be good to remove links which potentially single out individual editors and admins, but that should be left to editor Treasury Tag's discretion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How curious. The "likeable editor" is the one doing the attacks you realise? Any attacks perceived against the "generally constructive" tireless deletion nominator are only self defence so far as I'm aware (with the exception of some loony/troll who I won't mention more about per WP:DENY) Egg Centric 22:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - At least the box. As said previously, they are personal attacks. --Ebyabe (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If TreasuryTag wants to show his critics that they're right about him, more fool him. Fences&Windows 01:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like a strong consensus to just delete the famed userbox and its "contents" from here. Collect (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.