Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

Related

Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wtshymanski/Griping --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with other posts

I pretty much agree with all of the other posts but signing on to all of them them seemed a bit heavy for me. Sincerely, (north8000) 13:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Bit heavy" was for two reasons. 1. My experience with Wtshymanski is limited. 2. They are dealing with only the problems. As I said in my view, IMHO there are important positives. But now I signed on to the others with a note about my limited experiences. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where this would go

May it please the court, where does the poor SOB in the dock get to speak? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that someone who has been the subject of of so many complaints on so many noticeboards does not know how to find the Response section (it's the one with the "This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed" note), but since you asked, it is at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wtshymanski#Response ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Request For Closure

(Moved from article to talk)

Per the header, this Rfc should have been deleted many days ago.

"at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. [...] If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 5:32 am, 1 May 2012, Tuesday (UTC−7)), the page will be deleted.

The specific dispute, as stated by the OP and first certifier, concerns edits to the Home computer article. It is now nine days later and there is only one additional certifier, Guy Macon, and in the "Views" section GM states "I am not involved in the current dispute". So why is this RFC still here? Jeh (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Being involved in the original dispute is not required in order to have tried to resolve the dispute with this user and failed. The original poster of this RfC complained about a long-running pattern of behavior and a specific incident that highlights the pattern of behavior. I certified that I had previously tried to resolve the long-running pattern of behavior and that I have now tried to resolve the specific incident (which I was not involved in prior to my attempts to resolve it). Specifically, I once again urged Wtshymanski on his talk page to discuss his behavior and attempt to come to an agreement on what is and is not acceptable. As always, my comments were deleted without response, thus I must conclude that I have tried and failed to resolve the conflict.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct says that the purpose of the RFC/U is to "Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct" nowhere does it say that we must restrict ourselves to the specific incident that the newbie IP editor happened to choose to complain about. I did try to resolve that issue, stopping when it became clear that he would silently delete anything I wrote.

If this RFC/U is closed on such narrow technical grounds, I will simply open up a new one with a well-written description of the general pattern of behavior that everyone is complaining about with diffs of a dozen or so attempts by different editors to persuade Wtshymanski to cease his disruptive behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeh, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia: requests for comment/Wtshymanski you requested that this RfC/U be closed without giving me time to reply to his concerns (Three minutes between bringing your concerns up here and posting this closure request). Please don't do things like that. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevant clock is not the one that ran for three minutes, but rather the one that ran for nine days. I'm simply bringing the latter to admins' attention, via two different channels. I see no reason why one of those should be much delayed wrt the other. Jeh (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I am not particularly familiar with RfC protocol, but shouldn't the above interchange be moved to the RfC talk page (where it should have been tin the first place)? It does not seem to directly address any endorsement of the issues raised. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I am going to be WP:BOLD and move it to the talk page. If anyone objects, revert and we will discuss. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is what happened regarding the requuest to close:

1. Blanked [1] with comment "rm as there is a clear opposition against closing this"
2. Reverted[2] blanking with comment "I really don't think you're allowed to do that here unless you're an admin"
3. Collapsed[3] with comment "Wrong forum, requests to delete pages in the Wikipedia namespace must be made at WP:MfD" --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I know of at least one other. I think that a bit of a change is needed and that this serves everybody. In the big picture, this even serves Wtshymanski. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The "collapse" of the request to close was ill-founded. The boilerplate at the top of the RfC uses the term "deleted", so I did. That doesn't mean this is an ordinary RfD. It's a request to close the RfC. As a consequence, yes, the page will be deleted, but that doesn't mean it goes through RfD. Jeh (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That puzzled me as well. It sure looks like you put your request in the right place to me, and even though I disagree with closing it, it certainly was a reasonable request to make. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What to do?

OK, pretty much everybody except Wtshymanski agrees that we have a problem here. Some want to let him slide because of his other contributions while others want Wikipedia to do whatever it takes to stop the behavior, but there isn't a single person who thinks there isn't a problem here. But what can we do about it? Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance and this RfC/U are useful if someone wants to change, but they have no teeth. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the other noticeboards are of no use - Wtshymanski has been discussed there again and again and the decision is always that we have a problem with Wtshymanski but not severe enough to warrant action. Arbcom is certain to have the same opinion if someone files there. And indeed the system does work; pretty much every improper attempt to remove content Wtshymanski makes gets thwarted. Perhaps we should simply recognize the reality and get an official ruling that WP:PRESERVE, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL do not apply to Wtshymanski. That would at least save us the effort of reporting him again and again with zero chance of causing any change in his behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds facetious to ask the Admins to say "Civility doesn't apply to this one editor, Wtshymanski", but it's true that a lot of time has been wasted trying to curb this behavior. If such behavior is going to be acceptable, then policy needs to be changed to say so, and the closing Admins should explicitly get behind policy changes such as, on WP:CIVIL:

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:
1. Direct rudeness

• (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
• (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
• (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap");

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Acknowledge that in anything as complicated as editing an encyclopedia, there are bound to be differences of opinion and let the system work as designed. I could do a bunch of Albert-Speer-like scribbling to justify every edit I make but that would be dull and no-one would read it. You can't reason anyone out of a position he didn't reason himself into and I don't think there was any "reasoning" going on. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a false dilemma, between "a bunch of Albert-Speer-like scribbling" on the one hand and rude comments on the other hand. You are obviously able to convey information succinctly and without extraneous personal barbs in the article namespace, so you must be capable of doing the same in the talk and edit summary space. I don't think everyone must be a perfect angel all of the time, but anyone can be polite the majority of the time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: "If such behavior is going to be acceptable, then policy needs to be changed to say so": The problem is that we really can't say that those behaviors are forbidden if you are a Newbie, IP Editor, POV editor, SPA, multiple noticeboard complainer, or other undesirable riffraff. If we want the written guidelines to actually reflect what appears to be the new consensus, we need to figure out some sort of language that lets an editor know whether he is part of the good old boys network who are allowed to be belittling and insulting and to inform anyone who is contemplating lodging a complaint that Wtshymanski has immunity and that reporting him is a waste of time.

Alternatively, an admin could simply say "Wtshymanski, here is a list of complaints lodged against you in the last year (see below). Some are no doubt bogus, but it cannot be true that everybody is wrong and you alone are right. You are blocked until you make an unblock request indicating that you agree that your behavior is a problem and that you will make a good-faith effort to stop doing what everybody keeps complaining about." Then Wtshymanski should be unblocked if he makes any unblock request that even slightly resembles a commitment to follow Wikipedia's policies.

LIST OF COMPLAINTS FROM THE LAST 12 MONTHS:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149 (section User:Wtshymanski reported by User:24.177.120.74 (Result: page protected) )

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 78 (section Thoughts on Civility )

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/48 (section Rejected request for mediation concerning Slide-rule ) Note: rejected because Wtshymanski did not agree to mediation (also two people were named who had never edited the page, but that alone would not have resulted in a rejection)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive170 (section User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:No action) ) Note: 3RR, did not hit 4RR.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive651 (section Manitoba )

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive177 (section User:Wtshymanski Reported By User:109:153:242:10 (Result: No need to block) ) Note: In case anyone thinks I have it in for Wtshymanski, note that I came to his defense on this one. And so did Andy Dingley .

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683 (section Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles )

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172 (section User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-) Note: it was not declined because Wtshymanski wasn't edit warring -- he was -- but because his opponent was hopping IPs and semiprotection was a better solution.

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive107 (section Mains electricity by country) and (section Fessenden oscillator )

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive69 (section User:Wtshymanski and Jump start (vehicle) )

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive94 (section User:Rememberway )

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733 (section Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138 (section User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian (Result: Stale) )

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 93 (section Wikipedia is not for press releases )

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive167 (section User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:No violation) )

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive162 (section User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 31h) )

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690 (section Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive103 (section Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wtshymanski/Griping

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

Note that this is just the complaints from the last year. The total list is five to ten times larger than this.

As one user wrote:

"I wish to note that Wtshymanski ends up at these (Wikiquette assistance) pages far too often. If he's ending up here this often he is doing something wrong, other people are not really the problem, he is creating problems with his edit style."[4] (Emphasis in original)

and another advised

"I'd personally recommend ignoring Wtshymanski. Give them the same treatment they find so acceptable to give to others: crap. Seek outside opinions from civil editors if you actually want the dignity of being responded to."[5]

and

"Other users should be warned that they will get nowhere with this editor [Wtshymanski], and to ignore their presence since they edit by bullying. Frankly this user should be warned for his completely inappropriate attitude."[6]

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Starting tomorrow I'll be overseas and probably off-wiki for about 10 days. For the record, I'd like to see this result in some change. I value Wtshymanski's expertise and editing, but not how they treat/interact with others poorly, and the latter is a biggee. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, why don't you propose something? North8000 (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What could I propose that would be tolerable to the Borg Collective? You'll notice it's the same claque instigating complaints or some anonymous IP address. I don't really know what Guy Macon's issue is in particular,he's all over the map; even Andy Dingley can work with me on particular issues, though I still wish he could snap a picture of a test light for us. Our anon contributor using various IP addresses from the Guildford area of the UK has been far ruder to me than I've ever been to anyone else, but that's OK, sticks, stones, etc. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You could start by facing reality and not telling lies to yourself. The following are proven facts: [1] A BUNCH of folks are unhappy with your behavior. [2] A large number of other people somehow manage to edit Wikipedia with far fewer complaints about their behavior than you do. These are not matters of interpretation. They are objective, measurable reality.

When all of these different people who don't know each other all have a problem with your behavior, you should act like an engineer and determine what the common factor is. (Free clue: it's your behavior.)

What could you propose? How about trying something new? How about, instead of blaming everybody else, you try taking personal responsibility and giving us just a tiny indication that you might be willing to change your behavior in some small way? If you aren't willing to do that, how about at least discussing the issue like an adult? You could even respond to this very statement as if I were a human being who just might have a point, rather than calling me a Borg and dismissing everything that I say.

There once was a man who got very, very drunk and started driving on the wrong way on the freeway. When he heard on the radio that there was a drunk who was driving on the wrong way on the freeway, he peered out his windshield and said "My god! There are HUNDREDS of them!!!" Don't be that man[7]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am now beginning to see why some people were so keen for me to statrt this RfC. What I find so interesting, is that Wtshymanski's complete arrogance even manifests itself in the comments and responses made here (note the flippant reference to the "Borg Collective" (sic) another allusion that he is right and everyone else wrong?). Particularly of interest is his response to the RfC. Wikipedia has found it both necessary and useful to include the language variant tags for inclusion in article talk pages. But Wtshymanski's response is, "It's an un-useful tag and I frequently remove it.". So he is actually bragging that he does not approve of WP:ENGVAR, and that he will remove maintenance tags in breach of Wikipedia policy.

Wtshymanski complains of others rudeness. He should read some of the comments that he places in edit summaries - many are of a bullying tone. And once again in his contribution above, there is the attempt at bullying that so permeates his presence. He tries to pin down my location (is he threatening to come round and do me some harm?). What other reason could he possibly have for doing so? Sadly, he knows as little about the internet and how it operates as he does about anything else. I don't work or live in Guildford (though I wish I could afford to).

It's also worth noting that Wtshymanski continues to sneer at "... anon ... IP addresses ..." not only here but in edit summaries of articles and in the edit summaries of his talk page (usually accompanying a deletion of any attempt at discussion as noted). Wtshymanski might like to note that IP addresses are as entitled to edit as registered accounts (though it is clear that he thinks the policy is wrong - see next para). He might also like to note (and this has been pointed out on his talk page), that unless his name really is 'Wtshymanski' (somehow I doubt it - and even if it is, how could anyone possibly know?) then it is he that is anonymous and hiding behind a pseudonym (or 'CB handle' as he called it while bullying some other editors who had the affrontery to disagree with him). Unfortunately, when involved in an edit war with an IP address and the IP complains on the Admin noticeboard, the admin response is usually to semi-protect the article preventing the (usually) more knowledgeable IP address editor from undoing Wtshymanski's damage (and unknowingly giving credence to Wtshymanski's behaviour).

Wtshymanski continues to reinforce the widely held view that Wikipedia exists for him alone and that any other editor is here to spoil his fun. Is this my view alone? No: Wtshymanski himself has admitted it on his own talk page when he wrote, "Most editors are here to hurt the encyclopedia, not to help it". I'm sorry, but I think you will find that it is the other way around. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC) (and for the avoidance of doubt, I previously posted as 109.145.22.224. Dynamic IP addressing that we have here means that I have no control over what my IP address is at any time.)

Another rude comment, and a rude edit summary. News flash: open wikis have disadvantages. They're often wrong. We get it. Everyone gets it. Stop constantly whining about it. Go ask Larry Sanger for a job if it's so intolerable.

Make a binding agreement to use the same level of decorum outside articles as Wtshymanski does in the article space. With dozens of edits a day where he doesn't call anybody a simpleton, he's obviously capable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't deletion of a post in this manner a flagrant violation of the rules (WP:BLANKING). You can strike out comments but not delete them (except you own personal talk page). Although to be fair, the post deleted had no worthwhile content. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not only allowed, it is encouraged. If you write something that could be considered uncivil, immediately have second thoughts, and delete it immediately, that is a Good Thing. It is only after someone replies that deleting your own posts gets a bit dodgy. --Guy Macon (talk)

Above Wtshymanski claims that "it's the same claque instigating complaints" and lists me, Andy Dingley, and "our anon contributor using various IP addresses from the Guildford area of the UK."

Is this true? I made a list of people who have had posted some sort of complaint against Wtshymanski on various noticeboards or on his talk page in the last year. I may have made an error or two - I already caught one instance where I cut and pasted the wrong name - but the list is mostly correct. Also note that I did not look at article talk pages - there are a lot more conflicts to be found there. Also, some of these are almost certainly not Wtshymanski's fault: any active editor gets a few complaints. The point is that Wtshymanski gets far more complaints than other editors, yet vehemently denies that this has anything to do with his behavior. The list is:

Andy Dingley

Baseball Bugs

Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear!

Crispmuncher

Dbratland

Deucharman

Dicklyon

DieSwartzPunkt

DJSasso

EdJohnston

Elen of the Roads

Elky7

Floydian

Fransschreuder

Guy Macon

HominidMachinae

Jax 0677

Jc3s5h

Looie496

MegaSloth

Miniapolis

Moonriddengirl

NellieBly

North8000

Northamerica1000

P-Tronics

Rememberway

Sergeant Cribb

Shakewoomera

SpinningSpark

Tarunselec

Vchimpanzee

24.177.120.74 (Geolocates to Wisconsin)

69.111.194.167 (Geolocates to San Francisco)

75.57.242.120 (Geolocates to San Francisco)

93.82.12.233 (Geolocates to Austria)

109.145.22.224 (Geolocates to Hampshire,UK)

109.153.242.10 (Geolocates to Farnham, UK)

109.156.49.202 (Geolocates to Guildford, UK)

Also please note that geolocation is very inexact, often showing a nearby city that is over an hour's travel away. It generally does not confuse Austria or San Fransisco with the UK. Registering a username shields your IP address, increasing anonymity.

"The real travesty here is the total lack of of admin interest. It's one thing that there's an editor [Wtshymanski] going round with total disregard for procedure and collective opinion (that's not of itself especially unusual); it's quite another that he's apparently doing it with total impunity." -- RichardOSmith

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This might be a good test case for something different. NOT referring Wtshymanski . I've always said that the most destructive people in Wikipedia are not the blatant rulebreakers; they always get taken care of. They are the ones who pursue really nasty behavior by #1 Misusing (rather than breaking) the rules (I don't think that Wtshymanski does that) and #2 Push nastiness just to the limit on not breaking any bright line type rules, which appears to be the case. The system never really does anything about them. I know one that is 5x as destructive and 5x as clever in doing it as Wtshymanski in this respect. RFC/U provides a good process for reviewing these situations but then it doesn't really lead anywhere, although it is useful to get the situation coalesced and on record. Perhaps we could carry this through to findings and recommendations to Wtshymanski. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For an editor who claims that the language variant tag is an, "un-useful" tag, have a look at Wtshymanski's own Wikipedia page [[8]]. Is that a language variant tag at the top of his page? No it cannot possibly be, they are sooo un-useful. And the tag was there long before, the strange contribution that follows it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a real language variant tag. It is a variation of his usual sarcasm. Note that it does not say which variant, just "English" with a UN flag as if there was some standard variant that somehow magically made it so you don't have to choose between color and colour. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It figures. As far as I can see, this whole RfC seems to have been triggered by Wtshymanski changing British english into American english, so it obviously does matter to him. This is not an isolated problem, there is a hardcore of (presumably) American editors who routinely scour articles changing all the British english into American. I would be tempted to change 'English' to read 'Inidan English' in his tag if I didn't regard changing a user's own page to be somewhat unethical! DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen I thought you might appreciate this. There has been a long running discussion at Talk:Inductance where the article lead paragraph is being discussed. If you distil the relevant discussion down there is 8 to 10 valid comments (a not unreasonable number). But just have a look at the length of the discussion. Nearly all of it is either Wtshymanski who keeps introducing one distraction after another to try and justify his completely unencyclopeadic (not to mention obscure) contribution, or other contributors trying to point out where he is wrong.

But not only has he orchestrated a complete mess of a discussion, but he then has the affrontery to complain about it here [9]. And the nature of the complaint has the clear implication that it is everyone else that has caused the 'mess', as he describes it, and not himself. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you miss his sniping about it at this article, then don't worry - given past behaviour, he'll repeat vague references at every other talk: discussion for weeks to come, then enshrine it in a big list on a user sub page. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Something tells me that much of this discussion here should be in the text of the RfC. I don't know the in's and out's of this but maybe a link here from the text? 86.169.33.6 (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no real advantage to that. Yes, the complaints have evolved from the original ENGVAR issue, but our audience is not a casual reader who will miss things if they are not on the main page Our audience is Wtshymanski himself, in the hope that he will decide to change, and some random uninvolved admin who we hope will read this and take action. Both of those are parties who are sure to read the entire discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Mergeitis

Yet another remarkably blunt piece of ignorant mergeitis is at Talk:Atomic_demolition_munitions. Talk:Programmable read-only memory isn't great either, and these are just today's crop.

I would like to see an enforced topic ban on Wtshymanski doing merges. Enough is enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Especially troubling is this easily-observed pattern: At one time Wtshymanski was PRODing right and left, hoping that some percentage would escape notice and result in deleting content. When the folks who close PRODs got wise to him, he shifted to AfDs for a while, once again using the "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" technique. When that didn't work out so well he moved to mass merges -- but not ordinary content-preserving merges; these merges always involve considerable removal of sourced material. He is gaming the system to get things deleted against consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This sort of issue, like the ENGVAR thing, is a content dispute, and not the problem. Wtshymanski is allowed to be wrong. He's allowed to participate in articles that other editors perceive him ignorant of. The problem is (ironically) that Wtshymanski fails to recognize that other editors, too, are allowed to be wrong, and that they, even if he thinks they're ignorant, get to participate. And other editors, even mistaken or less knowledgeable editors, don't deserve abuse. Wtshymanski (and all of us) should make peace with the fact that Wikipedia's process might, in some cases, in the short term, produce a wrong outcome. It's bound to happen.

Wrong outcomes are to be expected some of the time from an imperfect process. It is frustrating. But it's not a reason to be uncivil to anyone, or to perpetually moan about how Wikipedia is flawed.

The hope is that Wikipedia's imperfect process will eventually correct the bad merges or badly phrased sentences or incorrect facts. The odds of self-correction are higher (the theory goes) with increased participation, and being uncivil discourages participation. And that's the real reason for the need for sanctions to change Wtshymanski's behavior.

So it's OK for Wtshymanski to want to merge excessively, even if he's wrong. It's not OK to poison the process with sarcasm, snark, and insults. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

When I first read the above, I printed it out and logged out so I could think about it. After giving it a lot of thought, I have come to a conclusion. You are right and I was wrong. I have been focusing on the wrong thing. Sure, I can prove that he is wrong on many things (and to his credit, right on may others) but as you have explained, I am missing the point. I thought the uncivil behavior was a secondary issue, but your argument has convinced me that it is pretty much the only issue here. You are right and I was wrong, and I am very glad to have been corrected. Thanks! (Slow clap...) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. We're at WP:COMPETENCE now. It's OK to be wrong, but if you keep being wrong over and over, then it's time to stop playing that game. W's merges are wrong because he punts them outside a subject he knows about, then when they're opposed he falls back on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or belittles the subject as trivial overall (see Talk:Atomic_demolition_munitions). This is either clueless, deliberately tendentious or using the user:TenPoundHammer deletion strategy that if only a tenth of your attempts succeed, simply nominate ten times as many.

I would agree that this is overshadowed though by the civility issues, and worst of all by his continuance with opposed merges despite. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of right and wrong, I have been doing a little bit a trawl following Wtshymanski's editing history. All too often I find an example where some editor has added some information to an article. The information added is incorrect. Now, it may be genuine ignorance on the part of the editor; it may be a genuine error or it may be nothing more than a good faith typo. But to Wtshymanski there is no benefit of the doubt, it has to be ignorance because he can now show off his (believed) superior knowledge. The contribution is reverted with a disparaging comment in the edit summary. If the editor happens to be newbie, what a welcoming place that makes Wikipedia appear.

And I lost count of the opposed merges. Problem here is that Wtshymanski only ever tags the article he proposes to delete, but puts the discussion on the talk page of the target article. Since he does not tag the target article, readers and editors of that article are unaware that anything is afoot. And then Wtshymanski complains that all the objectors failed to say anything within the 4 or 5 days between tagging and merging. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's fair to say that as we all contribute to different articles, there is likely to be some difference in our viewpoints. But there is much on which we seem to agree. We seem to be agreed that there is a definite problem. Putting content disputes aside (that is after all the nature of Wikipedia - if it wasn't there would be no need for talk pages), the main problem here would seem to be that of Wtshymanski's attitude and approach to both Wikipedia in general and his fellow editors in particular. To Wikipedia, the almost constant merging of articles with the consequent information loss as much of the source article is deleted. To editors, the continual uncivil approach to others who are, (apparently in Wtshymanski's own words)"... here to hurt the encyclopedia". Most notably, every time an editor does something not to Wtshymanski's taste, they are vilified regardless of whether they are right or wrong, usually with a caustic comment in an edit summary or even in a talk page. It is as though Wtshymanski is deliberately trying to discourage any other editor from contributing, leaving him with a clear run to do to Wikipedia as he wishes.

Most notable is the compendious list of evidence of a deep rooted problem as listed above (and I note that the list is just the last year). I have been editing under this account for about a year and half, and for several years under a previous account (for which the password got lost). And I have managed all with just one noticeboard for 3RR (For the record: Rejected because the complainant and the 4 people who supported him all thought 3 reverts was enough - sockpuppetry was suspected).

We are clearly agreed that there urgently needs to be a solution to this problem. Most of us have a pretty good idea what the ideal solution would be. The question that need to be addressed is: how can a satisfactory (as opposed to ideal) resolution to this be brought about? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I still think Dennis Bratland hit the nail on the head. If this was an ordinary editor, the problems with deleting content (whether by prod, AfD, merging with deletion of content, or simply nuking an engvar tag) or with being appallingly wrong on basic engineering concepts would be subject to correction by other editors. Most folks respond to criticism and moderate their edits accordingly. It is the behavioral issues that cause this to not work on Wtshymanski. Wtshymanski runs open loop without any feedback from other editors that would work toward correcting his errors. IMO, the problems with editing are the symptom, not the cause.

How can a satisfactory resolution be brought about? The solution is this: an administrator or administrators should place restrictions on Wtshymanski, to be enforced with blocks of longer and longer durations. Wtshymanski should be strictly forbidden from violating WP:CIVIL in any edit or edit comment, with any marginal violations to be interpreted as being forbidden. Wtshymanski should be placed on 2RR restrictions, with a possible future move to 1RR if problems persist. Wtshymanski should be forbidden from deleting any sourced content, through section blanking, merging, Afds, proposed deletions, or any other method. He should be allowed to suggest such deletions on article talk pages but not to initiate them himself. To those who will object, claiming that the system works to avoid problematic deletions, no, the system does not work when faced with someone who increases his deletion activity as his success rate goes down and wears out anyone trying to oppose the massive amount of content deletion. These are reasonable restrictions given the problems we have identified. Is there an admin who is willing to (after informally conferring with other admins and seeing if they agree) impose these restrictions? If not, we need to open up a discussion as to whether to ask arbcom to take this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski doesn't (or does only rarely) violate the letter of WP:CIVIL. Past admin inaction has been excused on the basis that a personal argument over topic #foo, followed by a deeply sarcastic and uncivil comment about the same #foo is not a civility breach, provided he puts it somewhere else like user:Wtshymanski/Griping, rather than under the nose of another editor. This fools no-one, except it would seem, WP admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This might be excusable if that is what he did. But he doesn't. The sarcastic or uncivil (or more often both) is usually left in the article (or article talk) edit summary where everyone can see it. Such comments are rarely left on his talk page because he rarely leaves any comments there prefering to simply delete any attempt at discussion (as noted extensively throughout this RfC). 86.169.33.6 (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Need to tweak the "Statement of the dispute" and "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" sections.

Over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia: requests for comment/Wtshymanski someone asked the quite reasonable question "If this user conduct RFC is properly certified, than why is the Users certifying the basis for this dispute section empty?"

I would suggest the following:

First, the person who filed this RfC/U should update the Statement of The Dispute to reflect both the original ENGVAR issue and the civility issue that most commentators have brought up. It is clear that the problem we are trying to address is larger than deleting an ENGVAR tag.

Second, those who agree that the new Statement of The Dispute accurately describes the dispute should certify it in the Users Certifying the Basis for This Dispute section. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

OK Guy, I have added some material to the Statement of Dispute section as you suggested. In the interests of traceabilty, I have placed a marker to deliniate the new stuff (since all the certification and views, not to mention Wtshymanski's response is to the original). If I haven't got the formatting right, adjust as you see fit. I am a little worried that the statement is getting somewhat long and wordy. The original ENGVAR issue is rather looking like small potatoes as this RfC seems to have taken on a life of its own.

I have also added some extra 'evidence'. I make no apologies for stealing your thunder on the 49 pin chip problem, but I felt that it provided one of the best examples of Wtshymanski's attitude to good faith edits that I could find (and it is just one example). That pig is still on the runway! 86.169.33.6 (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Now could you put an entry in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section with diffs showing that you tried and failed to resolve the original ENGVAR issue before filing this? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we Done?

It seems to me that pretty much everyone who has something to add has added it, and that there is an overwhelming consensus that some sort of administrator intervention should be requested. So, what is the next step? Does this automatically get reviewed by an admin? Do we put a request on WP:ANI asking for an admin to review this RfC/U and decide what action, if any, is needed? Or is there some other place we should go?

Needless to say, if Wtshymanski himself decides to post a response (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski#Response has been set aside for this), we should respectfully evaluate his claims and give him as much time as he needs to engage the community in further discussion about his behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am working on something that I hope to post in the RfC later on today. I am still compiling the statistics, but it should be enlightening. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statistics added. In response to your comment above, it is only right and proper that the accused be given every opportunity to respond the charges. I note that Wtshymanski is absent from Wikipedia at present <Bliss!>. He should be allowed a reasonable period of time to do this (we don't want to be tripped up by procedure). As things stand, I do not believe that his response so far is acceptable. If anything it is a confirmation that he cannot accept that he is the problem (and this is confirmed in an edit or two around Wikipedia - documented here). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As I write this (15:00 on 19 May 2012), Wtshymanski's last nine edits to Wikipedia were between 02:31 and 03:32 on 16 May 2012. I have this page and his user talk page on my watchlist, and I will make it a point to make sure that he is back editing Wikipedia and has plenty of time to respond before any action is taken against him. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would also note a positive contribution that counting the last 250 edits misses' He also uploads images such as these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RedRiverFloodwayInletStructure.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HP_95LX_Pocket_Computer.JPG

These are also notable because he uses the name "W. T. Shymanski" and thus mentioning that name does not violate WP:OUTING. Those of us who have been around a while are already familiar with him from his contributions to the RISKS Digest (See http://www.google.com/search?q=Shymanski+RISKS+Digest ). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Tanks for confirming my sanity, Guy! If you do wish to have a go yourself, you might like to know that it took around three and a half hours to compile the stats (a job I thought was going to take half an hour or so). The main time consumer is the time taken to link to the diffs of the edits, to check what is actually going on (and that over a fibre optic connection).

Whilst I don't doubt that Wtshymanski has probably made contributions in his long editing history, the point that came out is there seems to be precious little of it (i.e. none) in a fairly generous snapshot of editing history. What did surprise me was that 250 edits (just) failed to span five days (and after three and half hours, I was blowed if I was doing more). I personally have taken six months to make 250 edits span six months. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a powerful counterargument against the often-used argument that the WP:BRD process can handle Wtshymanski's disruption. To do that would take a couple of people spending several hours every day just checking that huge volume of edits. IMO we need an admin to place some sort of restrictions rather than asking us to play Whac-A-Mole forever. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I entirely concur. As I have hinted before, I believe that the ideal solution is an indefinite block. Realistically, I doubt very much that would happen, but a sensible set of restrictions would be a very good way forward. Shall I draft a set??? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, especially if those of us who are concerned about this get to approve / disapprove / suggest modifications. Here is my list, just to give you something to think about:

• Wtshymanski should be strictly forbidden from violating WP:CIVIL, broadly interpreted, in any edit or edit comment. Given his history of standing with his toes hanging over the civility line, we need to move the line way back for him.
• Wtshymanski should be forbidden from any deletion of content that has been on Wikipedia more than 48 hours, through section blanking, merging, Afds, proposed deletions, or any other method. Wtshymanski should be allowed and encouraged to suggest such deletions on article talk pages but not to initiate them himself. It is pretty much universally acknowledged that Wtshymanski's past efforts in this area have been destructive to the encyclopedia. He needs to turn over his axe to other editors and concentrate on adding content to the encyclopedia.
• Wtshymanski should be placed on 2RR restrictions, with a possible future move to 1RR if problems with edit warring persist. This, combined with the 48 hour rule above, will allow Wtshymanski to revert vandalism and other obviously bad content, but not content that other editors clearly think should be retained. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You missed the plethora of merging.

• Wtshymanski may tag articles for merging. Wtshymanski may not merge those articles unless the following criteria are met.

1. That both the source and target articles are properly tagged.
2. That the discussion is placed on the target article talk page and that Wtshymanski places a discussion heading and a statement justifying why the articles should be merged.
3. That the discussion be allowed to run for not less than 28 days <Is that long enough?>.
4. Wtshymanski may then merge the article if at least two other editors support the merge, or if there is opposition, that there is a clear concensus for a merge of at least 2:1 support <serving suggestion>.
5. That all the material from the source article is copied into the target article (unless already present). Any material that is unsourced may be tagged as but must not be deleted.

With respect to your suggestion of 2RR, I think 1RR would be more appropriate, with a move to 2RR if he tows the line (gives him something to aim for). There should be no restriction for reverting obvious vandalism.

Re: WP:CIVIL. A more appropriate restriction would be a requirement that on article talk pages and in edit summaries he is required to confine any comment to a factual description of what is wrong (talk pages) or what change has been made (edit summaries). This last part is not unreasonable for any edit by anyone. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Crikey! You've all beaten me to the punch.

• Civility: I think you have got that covered between you.
• Content Dispute: Again, you've got it covered. I favour a 1RR limit, because I think the leash has to be suitably short.
• Article Merge: 86.169.33.6 has got this nailed. A 2:1 concensus is probably reasonable. Why should unsourced info be tagged specifically on merge if it wasn't tagged before? This would just be a good excuse for Wtshymanski to tag bomb articles.

• Additional restriction: Wtshymanski may not merge any articles without tagging them first and posting the justification on the talk page as (2) above (which WP:M currently permits).

• Rewriting Prose: Recognising that we all write things in different ways, Wtshymanski has no prerogative to insist anything is written his way. Whilst improving any article is desireable, Wtshymanski should be required to post any minor rewording as a 'request for edit' on the talk page. Others can then object, concur or even improve as required.

Any deviation should be met with a prolonged (say 3 months) or indefinite block according to severity.

Note: that despite his recent blanking of User:Wtshymanski/Griping, I note that his set of rules that others should follow is beginning to appear on that page again. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Since both you and I were opposing Wtshymanski at Talk:Inductance, you may like to note that if you knock out all the responses to Wtshymanski's nonsense at that talk page, and the contributions here, it becomes closer to ten months. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point! DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that explains a particularly vitriolic entry on an article talk page. Wtshymanski (or W.T.Shymanski as he seems to be in reality) made a comment disparaging 'anon' edits (i.e. IP addresses) and 'CB Handles' as though anyone not using their real name had no right to be here. Yet another blatant attempt to impose his requirements on Wikipedia? 86.169.33.6 (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I Am Calling It.

Proposal withdrawn, will ask again on July first

OK, here is where we are as of 23 May 2012:

It has been three days since anyone edited this page or talk page. Everyone seems to have had their say.

There is an overwhelming consensus about the problem; None of the comments have resulted in any substantive disagreement. There are some small differences of opinion on what restrictions to apply, but that's OK; if an admin applies restrictions she/he will decide what is appropriate without our help.

A week ago (16 may 2012) Wtshymanski, who had been spending 16 hours a day editing Wikipedia, suddenly stopped with no explanation. It could be that he simply quit. It could be that he is laying low waiting for this storm to pass. He may have made a new start with another username. Or it could be that that pesky real world out there is once again interfering.

I think I can safely speak for everyone who has participated here in saying that we would all prefer that Wtshymanski continue vandal-fighting and content-creating without the behavior documented on this page, but that his quitting is preferred to his continuing on without changing his behavior.

Based upon all of this, I propose that we close this with the option of reopening it if the behavior resumes. If the problems stop and do not come back later, we will simply leave this in the archives.

(If you think it has resumed under a different name, do NOT attempt to "out" the user! File a report at WP:SPI and wait until they make a determination. Wikipedia editors have a right to start fresh without the behavior that got them in trouble. They do not have a right to change identities and continue the bad behavior in an attempt to avoid scrutiny.) --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Time for a consensus check:

Close with an option to re-open later:

Proposal withdrawn, will ask again on July first

• Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep open for now:

Proposal withdrawn, will ask again on July first

• 86.169.33.6 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC) It is quite possible that he is away on business or holiday (or whatever). Let's give it a reasonable time before we jump to conclusions. It's only been a week. 4 weeks from now I am going to 'disappear' for 2 weeks as I am off up to Ny-Ålesund, well inside the Arctic Circle and satellite internet access is very expensive.
• DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Wtshymanski must have the opportunity to respond. I assume that he can only do this if the RfC is open. If he is otherwise engaged, then the opportunity may not be available to him at this time. Once he is seen to be editing again, if he does not respond, then: fair enough, it can be closed and escalated.

There has been no activity since the 16th. Has anyone noticed any new editors with a strange predilection for removing content from engineering-related articles and/or sarcasm in edit summaries? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not me. I watch about 60 specialized technical articles, maybe 15 of the type that Wtshymanski has frequented/ frequents. Nothing like that at any of those. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I watch about 50 articles, at least 30 of which are the kind Wtshymanski targets, and I have seen no sign of his behavior pattern. It could be that he is making a fresh start without repeating past mistakes, in which case I wish him well. It could be that he is laying low hoping that this will blow over, but that's not going to happen. Or it could be that he has given up for good. If so, it would have been nice to blank his user page one last time and put up a retired sign. After a year or so we can apply Template:Not around. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope he hasn't left. Wikipedia needs people like Wtshymanski, so long as he tries a little harder to get along. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, roughly what I said in the RFC/U. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia need him? Has anyone missed him in the last fortnight? Nope! Me neither. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that with Wtshymanski's past record on these matters, that you are probably indulging in a bit of wishful thinking though, to be fair, I wish it as well. It is still quite probable that he is on holiday or away on business. I feel certain that we will know when he is back, and I do not doubt that he will be back. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Wtshymanski in spite of the adjudication recorded at the head of this RfC has carried on in much the same manner as before.

Wtshymanski's has added to his unacceptable behaviour by removing other editor's comments from article talk pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Switch&diff=prev&oldid=502972954

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mobile_phone&diff=prev&oldid=502961029

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mobile_phone&diff=prev&oldid=502986735

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Switch&diff=prev&oldid=502986821

I note that a 24 hr block was imposed for both this and the behaviour recounted in the main part of the RfC.

In spite of being blocked, Wtshymanski is still at it on his talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtshymanski&diff=prev&oldid=502995406

Note the edit summary (usual sarcasm - this time directed at Wikipedia itself) but also the comment "The user in question has a well-documented and seemingly random dislike of me." Documented where? A clear abuse of myself. I can assure Wtshymanski that my dislike of his editing style is not in any way random, and from the above RfC, I do not seem to be alone. Having never met him, I could not comment as to whether I would dislike him as a person any more than he can speculate.

If it is documented anywhere, then it is extremely well hidden - as in I can't find it. Looking at both your and Wtshymanski's editing history since his return, I can find nothing that suggests dislike untill Wtshymanski started deleting your comments (and I think you had good reason to take umbridge). In fact, in two cases, you actually supported edits that he had made - hardly evidence of dislike. This is once again the classic case of Wtshymanski is right and thus the agrieved party, as the edit summary to this post to his talk page makes clear [10]. Hopefully, his current block will send the right message. I am the originator of the above RfC and am currently 86.150.65.44 (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Another sarcastic edit summary (while blocked for sarcastic edit summaries among other things) [11]

I'm not sure who this one is directd at (himself perchance) [12].

Now in fairness: did he have a pang of conscience or has decided to turn over a new leaf? He removed one of the above comments [13]. Good move!

DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite the recent block which was partly for failing to take note of this RfC, Wtshymanski is still at it. Here ([14]) is a recent deletion of a comment made to his user page (no reply of course), but what is important here is the belittling edit summary where he describes the commentor as "an anonymous coward". Wshymanski is carrying on his self opinion that only people who use their real identities shoud be allowed to edit on Wikipedia. What is with this guy that he just cannot get what is a very simple message? I feel the admins should impose a longer block for no other reason to send the deired message. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I just learned about this editor and his/her issues when I went to leave a compliment on their talk page. For what it's worth, Wtshymanski's additions to Optical ground wire were really useful; he took a virtual stub and made a real article of it. It would be nice to harness all that talent and useful energy if he can somehow leave all the disruption behind.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

His technical expertise, especially with regard to electricity, is almost unsurpassed on here. If that were to be combined with a good attitude, or even a little humour, then we'd have a seemingly model editor. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was in the process of penning a positive contribution to this discussion as Wtshymanski has been much restrained since his enforced absence. No sarcastic comments. reasonably co-operative editing - even adding citations when requested. As per the above two comments, you are correct that when Wtshymanski gets a subject on which he has the necessary expertise, he can produce a good article. But since an old problem has just come up again: when he gets a subject where he does not even understand the fundamentals he can wreak havoc as he has done in the past. He thinks he knows what he is saying but then won't conceed once everyone points out that he is wrong. He has not done this recently. However, while penning this contribution, Wtshymanski did it again. He added this nugget to a talk page ([15]). Where did he get the absurd idea that a battery is a negative resitance? It was a shame that he spoiled what was other wise a good run. I can now only wait for the discussion on said talk page to spiral out of control as has happened so frequently before. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Whew, that's a weird one! The topic does not exist except as a fringe way looking at common phenomena covered elsewhere. It's like making a second article on dogs titled "six legged canines that are missing two legs". But more there have made the mistake besides Wtshymanski. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that his comment was an off-point distractor. But your rejoinders (the dog, the fringe, and "Agree that this article should get deleted/merged") were even worse. Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My only point was a non-technical analogy to illustrate the situation. A very very very very uncommon way to view and name a common phenomena. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I get that. My point is that it's not a fringe topic, and the article shouldn't be deleted. W just had an odd approach to making that point. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant a fringe name and fringe lens on a non-fringe topic. Which means it's also a fork. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"His technical expertise, especially with regard to electricity, "

Bollocks. His technical expertise is recognised, but it's also very narrow. Worst of all, it's more narrow than his breadth of editing. For every edit where he's within the bounds of his knowledge, there's another where he spouts nonsense because he's outside of it. As he also, as here, has gained some reputation for "technical expertise", then that frequently goes unchallenged. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the W, but in this case I think the complainer DieSwartzPunkt is more in the wrong, complaining as he is about having his sarcastic snitty nonresponsive talk page comments removed. Dicklyon (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that the Admins disagreed. Wtshymanski got a block, DieSwartzPunkt did not. DieSwartzPunkt did acknowledge somewhere else that he was probably skirting the line, but observed that it was out of the frustration with Wtshymanski with which we are all too familiar (not helped by the fact that Wtshymanski seemed to have targeted DieSwartzPunkt - even to the point of making unsupported allegations). Regardless of all that, Wtshymanski has been far more restrained since his block so some good has come out of it. (Originally the author of this RfC but now 86.150.65.44 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

To be fair, that has historically been the Wtshymanski way. But of late, Wtshymanski has been 'correcting' articles and editing in the odd incorrect point. Some other editor has corrected that point and, so far, Wtshymanski has let the correction stand. That is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work isn't it? AFAICT, this RfC seems to have largely achieved its purpose - so far!. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear - He's at it again

Once again, Wtshymanski is deleting maintenance tags that he deems 'inappropriate'.

Wtshymanski deleted a maintenance tag from Ferroresonance in electricity networks. Deleted at this dif [16]. Wtshymanski claims that the article has sufficient citations. However, the tag was for the presence of footnotes but flags an article lacking appropriate in line citations to make the references clear. Four out of the six paragraphs are devoid of inline citations.

Editor DieSwartzPunkt restored the tag [17], pointing out that four paragraphs (i.e. two thirds of the article) are devoid of citations.

Wtshymanski deleted the maintenance tag again ([18]) claiming it as an inappropriate tag, and suggesting that more footnotes rather than the required inline citations are required. So Wtshymanski is once again is trying to dictate that Wikipedia should fall in line with his ideas on how it should be run and that Wikipedia policy on references is wrong.

I restored the tag here ([19]).

I have also placed (or rather, replaced) the maintenance tag warning on his talk page [20]. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In spite of the above, Wtshymanski has changed the tag again ([21]) to a 'no footnotes' tag to fall in line with his citation policy. But the article does have footnotes, so that is the wrong tag. It does not have inline citations so ...

The correct tag has been restored ([22]). 86.150.65.44 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

He has now added one inline citation and deleted the tag again so at the very least its a violation of WP:3RR 86.150.65.44 (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Nothing to see here. Let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And the sarcasm is back [23]. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As Dennis said, let it go. You gave him a final warning for removing a refimprove tag from a short article with four refs. If there are things there that need citations, your next move should have been some citation needed tags instead of warring over a type of tag that never does any good because it provides no guidance. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeding an article with citation needed tags seems to be counterproductive and others only accuse you of 'tag bombing'. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Tag bombing" would be an incorrect accusation. Putting {{Citation needed}} next to each specific fact that needs verification is much more useful than a blanket tag at the top of the article. It tells others which facts are in dispute, and after a reasonable amount of time, the tagged statements may be deleted with confidence. Or you could boldly delete the uncited facts right now, if you think they're egregious enough. Whoever has been making this tag bombing charge is wrong. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, 86.150.65.44 (formerly 86.181.48.171)[24][25] is baiting Wtshymanski -- pushing his buttons in such a way as to get a negative reaction that he can report. The goal here is not to "Get Wtshymanski" but rather to encourage him to continue his productive activities while stopping the disruptive behavior. Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Going after every minor infraction is not going to achieve anything. Rather, it may wind up any admin who looks at a long catalogue of such infractions. Guy is right, the object of the exercise is to foster an inviting place where anyone can contribute in a welcoming environment. The aim is to make Wtshymanski part of that environment and pursuade him to adhere to the spirit of Wikipedia. Having said all that, it would be churlish of me not to add a note of support to 86.150.65.44, given that I originally reverted the deletion of the offending maintenance tag in the first place (and indeed the last place) firmly believing that its deletion was inappropriate. I had not clocked this interchange on the second occasion that I reverted the tag. By this time Wtshymanski had changed a 'no inline references' tag to a 'no footnotes' tag. I still believe that that was wholly inappropriate given the fact that the article had 5 footnotes, but 4 paragraphs that had no inline citations. But regardless of all that, Wtshymanski seems to have allowed the tag to stand, which is to his credit (though it would have been 4RR if he hadn't). So far, the signs are encouraging, but if Wtshymanski decides to revert to his old ways, then something a lot more substantial than a minor edit war is going to be required to pique anyone's attention.

Incidently 86.150.65.44, Wtshymanski had not violated the WP:3RR rule. Either you are not familiar that four reverts are required or maybe you counted the original tag deletion, which was not a revert. As for edit warring? Maybe you may have been warring as well, though two reverts are hardly compelling evidence.

Guy, I'm not sure how the two comments on my talk page are 'baiting' Wtshymanski. I interpreted the first as a simple courtesy note - nothing more, and the second as purely informative. I see no evidence that Wtshymanski was even intended to see them. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Point well taken. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly the sarcasm is in the ascendency again. Recent warning on his talk page [here]. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this but have little to add. I've cohabited a couple of pages with them in a minor way without incident. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Persistent Edit Warring

Resolved Issue

Wtshymanski is now once again edit warring and trying to enforce his view as to how a particular article is laid out. the article is AC/DC receiver design. He started by changing a bulleted point comparison of AC versus DC into prose. It was clear that the prose version made it harder to pick out what the differences actually were where it was more obvious as a bulleted list. And two other editors besides myself seem to agree on that point. Nevertheless, Wtshymanski has changed the list to prose once and despite three editors keep returning it to the much clearer bulleted list, Wtshymanski has reverted the change no less than five times (5RR). Original change to prose [26], deleting much information in the process. First restoration (by DieSwartzPunkt) also pointing out that Wtshymanski deleted most of the information. [27]. DieSwartzPunkt also added some useful material. First Wtshymanski reversion (1RR) [28], deleting the same information again along with that added by DieSwartzPunkt. Restored again by myself [29]. Second Wtshymanski reversion (2RR) [30], once again deleting the restored material. Once again material restored by my good self [31]. Third Wtshymanski reversion (3RR) [32]. Material deleted again. Once again deleted material restored [33]. Fourth Wtshymanski reversion (4RR) [34]. Half hearted attempt made to add back some of the deleted material (but not much). A new editor weighs in and states in his edit summary that the bulleted list is far easier for a lay reader to make the comparison (well that's what the project is about isn't it??), [35]. Fifth Wtshymanski reversion (5RR), [36]. Wtshymanski is determined to hammer in his hard to follow prose format regardless of anyone else's views. No attempt has been made by Wtshymanski to raise the issue on the article talk page. Three editors believe that the bullet point format is clearer, Wtshymanski wants prose in his encyclopedia. If that is not unco-operative editing, what is? Wtshymanski has pointed to a style guide which says, "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs.". In this case the material is easier to compare and comprehend as a bullet point list, and hard to follow in plain paragraphs, so that clearly does not apply in this case (in my view). I considered a AN for edit warring but in the light of observations and suggestions in the previous section, I have refrained from doing so. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Good thing you didn't, because Wtshymanski never went over 2RR. The reverts you list had these timestamps: 22:00, 20 Jul 2012 23:36, 21 Jul 2012 18:51, 31 Jul 2012 17:53, 01 Aug 2012 20:44, 01 Aug 2012 14:56, 03 Aug 2012 3RR need to be in the same 24 hour period. Not ten days. Re: "No attempt has been made by Wtshymanski to raise the issue on the article talk page", that's not how it works. For that to be a legitimate complaint, you have to have attempted to raise the issue on the article talk page without receiving a response. Instead I see you reverting multiple times without initiating a discussion. See WP:BRD and WP:BOOMERANG. A case could be made for slow-motion edit warring, but there is no case for a 3RR or refusal to discuss complaint. We need to treat Wtshymanski fairly. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC) In that case, in order to avoid littering this RfC, can we agree to delete this entire section? I have put something appropriate on the article discussion page. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I am collapsing this as being resolved. I don't like to see things get deleted because someone might point to this section as evidence supporting some other claim, in which case seeing your good-faith strikeout/retraction might be important. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

More mischief

Wtshymanski took it upon himself to delete three references and one external link in Edison screw on the pretext that they are not in English. To see when this happened, scroll through the revision history of said article and look for his name. See also his comments in Talk:Edison screw#Profile. Peter Horn User talk 18:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)