User talk:Guy Macon/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Negative Power Factor

After a long period of silence, Wtshymanski is back at Talk:Power factor and has picked up the stick again on his IEEE spec that conrtradicts itself [1]. You threatened to take action if he did, so now is your big chance. I B Wright (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski should be treated like anyone else who has a WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific theory that he cannot let go of. Please be very careful not to treat him worse than an adamant believer in perpetual motion or phrenology would be treated. His penultimate comment was on 24 August 2013‎, at which time several editors advised him to drop the WP:STICK. He dropped it until today (14 November 2013) at which point he posted a grand total of sixteen words. That's so far from being disruptive that I would give him a barnstar if not for the fact that in the past he has assumed that my honest attempts to tell him he did something right were sarcasm.
Meanwhile, Wtshymanski has been doing some fine work on articles where his fringe engineering theories don't interfere. Look at these edits for example, comparing the page before and after Wtshymanski edited it. That was some very good work. Now look at these edits to another page; again, a real improvement.
I am watching for any resumption of the former disruptive behavior, but one talk comment every month or two is not disruptive. The goal here is to encourage Wtshymanski's productive editing while discouraging him from getting into raging battles in those areas where his theories go against the scientific consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I cannot argue that Wtshymanski does make positive contribution to Wikipedia when he puts his mind to it. This edit is a good example where an article was turned from a rather childish description of the action of an inductor into a much more engineering like description - a substantial improvement. However the edit betrayed one characteristic that Wtshymanski has shown on quite a few occasions. His description of what the inductor does was what a number of editors were trying to get into the article at Inductance. However, Wtshymanski was determined that that was not what inductance was and he wanted a totally different description (describing a solenoid). I have accumulated a few examples of where he argues a point one way at one talk page and then attempts to argue the exact opposite at another (and in one case: in the same talk page but at different sub discussions). I cannot help but form the opinion that where Wtshymanski appears to show an ignorance of some of the most basic engineering principles, the reality is, that he is merely adopting the argument that he does for no purpose other than to facilitate an edit war and a potentially lengthy discussion (if indeed he discusses at all). I find it hard to believe that an engineer at his level really does not understand the basics to the extent that he appears not to.
I was hoping to add details of these examples to the evidence gathering page for a potential future RfC. However, I cannot find it or a suitable link. I was fairly certain that this was being collated by DieSwartzPunkt, but that does not seem to be the case. Can you please remind me of where this is located? -I B Wright (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe that he deleted it.[2] Of course there is the first RFC/U (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski). Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance for guidance. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
(Archiving after leaving it up for three days to make sure everyone has a chance to respond) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

DRN for Richard Armitage (actor)

Guy, Thank you for your willingness to take on the requested Dispute Resolution regarding the article on Richard Armitage. Out of respect for your time and the work you have already put in, I wanted to let you know that I do not plan to participate in the DR any further. This is a conduct issue on KiplingKat's part, based largely in her need to WP:OWN the article. Consensus was reached, she herself made the desired edit. The article is accurate, reflective of the content of the sources we have available to use, and verifiable. There is nothing to dispute, much less resolve, and I'm not willing to do anything to encourage any further disruptive editing on KiplingKat's part. All the best to you, --Drmargi (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. There is no requirement to participate, but you are always welcome. Once any remaining content issues are resolved (which looks like it will be pretty easy to do) I will give everyone involved advice on where to go t resolve conduct disputes.
Again, thanks for the welcome. There are no content disputes; this is all conduct, and I know where to go. I just don't have any confidence it will do any good. I'd prefer to give KK a wide berth instead. She's most likely run me off the article, just as she has every other editor who has dared to challenge an edit she makes. Best of luck to you! --Drmargi (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did come here to ask you where I could go to complain about Drmargi's conduct which is very evident on the article's talk page. And is very evident on the Dispute Resolution board. KiplingKat (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please give DRN a chance before assuming that we cannot help. Many times, solving the content dispute also solve the behavior problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not realize the content discussion would get shut down while the conduct discussion was ongoing. I'm a little confused how a discussion of content (especially when one party has stated twice they would not participate) is going to help the conduct issue when discussion of conduct is not allowed. KiplingKat (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, my apologies for not notifying you that I was quoting things on your talk page. I'm new to this process. I notified Drmagi, but did not think of the innocent bystander, as it were. I'm sorry. KiplingKat (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I think your comments about DRN were directed elsewhere, but just in case, I have no issue with DRN when there's actually a dispute, and know it can work well. My comments above referred to the dramah boards, which experience tells me are toothless. --Drmargi (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem. As you can see at ANI, I have some comments about user behavior, which is something I cannot do as a DRN volunteer (the rules about discussing article content, not user conduct apply double to me). If I hadn't closed it down because of our one venue at a time rule, I would have had to step down and ask another volunteer to take over; I cannot criticize or defend user behavior at ANI and stay neutral and unbiased. All in all, I think ANI is a better place for this. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo

It looks we discussed for nothing. In the end our agreed sentence has been modified to the version wanted by some editors who refused to participate to the DR. Should it work this way? It looks some people have by far too much time and need to waste it. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As a first step in dispute resolution, WP:DRN is about 80% to 90% effective, and participation is entirely voluntary. In your case, it looks like you need to take the next step. Here is how: Go back and carefully read WP:DR. Ask yourself, have I fully followed the first step (In the "Follow the normal protocol" section of WP:DR)? Have I fully followed the second step (In the "Discuss with the other party" section of WP:DR)? Now assuming that you have done all of those things, the next steps listed are WP:DRN (You already tried that), Third opinion (skip this step; it is for disputes involving only two editors) which brings you to the "Request community input on article content" or "Noticeboards" section of WP:DR. The noticeboard are purely advisory. With DRN, we hope to get everyone to agree. With RfC, you get an experienced closer who makes an official determination of what the consensus is. If it goes against you you are expected to follow the consensus. If it goes against another editor, he is expected to follow the consensus. If either of you refuse to follow the consensus, you can be taken to WP:ANI and an administrator will force you to follow consensus or be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
So in response to your question "Should it work this way?", the answer is yes. Everyone involved has had a chance to voluntarily come to a resolution, and now the next step has some teeth. I know that it can be frustrating, but the system does work.
For anyone else reading this, please note that I am not taking sides. I would have given Silvio1973 exact the same answer whether I thought that he was 100% in the right or 100% in the wrong. I choose to say neutral and help anyone who asks. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is not frustrating at all. It is the rule and you are right but what you described is not the issue.
The timeline of the events was the following: 1)We all participate to the discussion on the talk page of the article but it did not work. 2)The issue was moved to the DRN were we discussed and found an agreement, even if some users for some reason moved away from the discussionon. 3)We modificed the article according to the consensus created on the DRN. 4) A week later, the same users who moved away from the DRN, re-modified the article according to what pleased them since the beginning (sic).
And I am also not taking part. It is just that I find this strange. Because basically it means that if I want things my way and I can do it even adversely to the conclusions of the DR. So what the DR is for? --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:DRN is for the 95% of editors who can arrive at an agreement and stick to it. For the remaining 5%, see my comments above, which describe the issue just fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control RfC

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My sole involvement was as a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer, and I only volunteer to work on cases where I am neutral. I really do not favor one side or the other in this dispute. I do, however, insist that whatever the result of the RfC is, all sources used must conform to WP:RS and the article must conform to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. These are community standards and can not be overridden by an RfC on a particular dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with an editor's WP:IDHT

I agree with your comment at FTN about User:QuackGuru not being the best judge of editorial consensus, and seek your opinion. I think this goes to a longstanding pattern of QG's WP:IDHT. There's an excellent example right on FTN today, where QG twice ignores an answer I gave him: see comments just above this section. (Diff of my last comment.) There's an obvious user conduct issue here, but it's hard to get traction since QG is a respected skeptic editor and a lot of editors automatically support him if a perceived fringe proponent is criticizing him. (I'm a dual-degreed scientist and acupuncturist, not practicing the latter and more skeptical about it.) QG seems impervious to change; while he seems mostly sincere, he appears to lack social/communication skills necessary for editing. How can I bring this to the community so that they'll really listen? ANI is out, for the above reason. Maybe an RfC/U for the broader community. What are your thoughts? This is so frustrating, and longstanding. (BTW, I have health issues too, and totally understand about time constraints.) regards, --Middle 8 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear I am against including the low level details. Then Middle 8 asked if I'm in favor of restoring/including the text that I am against. I am discussing article content at the talk page and for no good reason Middle 8 decided to disrupt the talk page rather than focusing on article content. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Please don't mischaracterize my editorial feedback (well-founded, if you read what other editors have said) as "disruption". BTW, the reason I asked you about restoring/including content -- something you seem to find offensive -- is that you asserted there was consensus despite my not agreeing with you, so I wondered if you'd changed your mind (the AGF position) or were just misrepresenting consensus. I've explained this THREE TIMES already [3] yet you keep repeating it. IDHT much? --Middle 8 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I have the same advice for both of you. Read WP:CON and WP:DR and follow the steps. They really do work. Please note that QuackGuru is already doing this -- he posted an RfC, which is the next step in DR. At the end of the RfC you will both have a ruling by an uninvolved admin about what the consensus is, and the matter will be settled. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input about the article; no disagreement there. In my comment above, to be clear, I'm actually more concerned about user conduct. It's fine if you don't want to go there. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:DR has step-by-step instructions for resolving disputes about user conduct as well as article content. I am purposely not expressing an opinion about whether there is a user conduct issue in this case or about which side, if any, is misbehaving; my advice would be the same either way. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving user conduct disputes. Wikipedia's dispute resolution system really does work; try it and you will see. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Controversy-ANI closed as should be in DRN, but DRN closed-where to go?

The ANI was closed due to the DRN but the DRN was closed because of the ANI. So where to go? What I included in the ANI is a conduct issue not content and I was not finished presenting the evidence in any case but can continue doing so at whichever forum is most appropriate. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now withdrawn all DRNs and wish to proceed with AN or ANI. Please advise. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks like ANI is the best place if it really is a conduct issue. It was closed with advice to re-open a DRN case, but DRN only handles content disputes. I advise posting to WP:AN (not WP:ANI) with a question about where to go. Stick to just that specific question, and avoid the temptation to argue your case -- that comes later. WP:DR nad WP:CON give some guidance on where to go with different types of disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)