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/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)