Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:44, 3 May 2012

To remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 12:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

• Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This involves a persistent editor who routinely deletes or modifies other editor's good faith contributions. Such changes are usually accompanied by an edit summary which suggests an attitude of 'I'm right and you're wrong' with little else to go on - certainly no discussion anywhere. Such editing behavious is disruptive. Wtshymanski's attitude is not of someone trying to enforce ownership of the article or talk page under dispute, but rather someone trying to enforce ownership of the whole of Misplaced Pages (or certainly the bits he actually understands).

The current dispute involves the use of language variety tags on an article talk page.

In particular: Wtshymanski altered a number of spellings in the article Home computer from the British English varient to their American English. The article was originally written in British English by User:Shoka whose own home page clearly shows him as a U.K. resident. Misplaced Pages policy is that the variety of English used in the first non-stub version is the prevailing variety (except by concensus). The original article is not identified as a stub.

In accordance with WP:ENGVAR, a {{British English}} template was added to the article talk page to flag that the article is British English. Wtshymanski, deleted the tag with the cryptic edit summary "Why?". Following its restoration, Wtshymanski once again deleted it describing it as a "weird tag". Following its second restoration and the placing of a warning on Wtshymanski's talk page for tag deletion, Wtshymanski once again deleted it claiming that the article had no association with "Indian English" (I assume that 'Inidian' was a typo - given that there is no such word). Where Indian English comes into this is a mystery.

I note that another editor (User:212.183.128.48) contributed to the discussion on Talk:Homebuilt computer supporting the tag use and restoring it again.

Attempting to discuss behaviour on Wtshymanski's own talk page is fruitless, as any attempt to do so, merely results in the attempt at discussion being deleted, without so much as an acknowledgement. I notice that Wtshymanski has a page that outlines 'his' rules User:Wtshymanski/Griping.

Since the above was written, another editor has nominated the 'Griping' page for deletion. Wtshymanski has attempted (badly) to cover his tracks by blanking the page. The full list of his 'rules' can be found here .

Desired outcome

I beleive that the Misplaced Pages community should make every effort to make perpitrators of such disruptive behaviour fall in line with the majority expectation. The behaviour demonstrated by Wtshymanski does little except to frustrate legitimate editors who are adding material in good faith - and may even discourage them from contributing in the future. Whilst I would like to see some sort of wrap on the knuckles (or even sanction), I believe that Misplaced Pages as a whole could benefit from some sort of enforceable policy where editors who ride rough shod over other good faith users can be removed from circulation.

As others have noted, Wtshymanski, does his best to remain inside the letter of the law as currently written (but only just inside).

Description

Wtshymanski has demonstrated editing behaviour where he has little regard for the contributions or desires of others, no regard for their opinions, and little desire to discuss any changes that he believes should be made. Where any discussion is offered on an article talk page, it is invariably in the format of 'I am right, you are wrong - like it or lump it'.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Addition of ENGVAR tag:

Wtshymanski 1st removal:

Wtshymanski 2nd removal:

Warning on Wtshymanski talk:

Wtshymanski 3rd removal: Even had the cheek to cite the policy he was violating.

And an interesting comment written by Wtshymanski on his own talk page, "Most editors are here to hurt the encyclopedia, not to help it.". A clear indication of his contempt for any editor other than himself?

Applicable policies and guidelines

WP:ENGVAR

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Attempts by certifier 109.145.22.224

1. Numerous attempts have been made to discuss behaviouir with Wtshymanski at his talk page. The response is always exactly the same. Deletion of the comment with not so much as acknowledgement.
2. See . Note the continual reversion to a blanked page after a comment is made.

Attempts by certifier Guy Macon

1. Here is my first attempt to engage Wtshymanski in a conversation about his behavior: As you can see, he rejects the principle of WP:AGF and responds to any attempt to discuss his behavior with sarcasm.
2. Here is my second attempt to engage Wtshymanski in a conversation about his behavior: Thus time, along with the sarcasm he actually brags about being listed at WqA, or ANI again and again without anyone dealing with his behavior. Here another editor tries:.
3. My third attempt:
4. Obviously, trying to have a serious discussion about Wtshymanski's behavior wasn't working, so I tried being more positive, praising him when he made a constructive edit without misbehaving. He deleted it, accusing me of being sacrastic. I explained that I was not being sarcastic, and then self-reverted. Later I tried some more positive reinforcement. Three minutes later he blanked the page without responding.
5. Many other editors have attempted to engage Wtshymanski in conversations about his disruptive behavior and had their comments deleted without response:

Attempts by certifier C3

Attempts by certifier C4

Other attempts

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

1. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 03:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC) - I'm not willing to dig up the diffs from what is now at least a year ago, but it seems the behaviour has not changed since then. This user routinely blanks their talk page when approached for discussion. They leave snarky edit summary sometimes, and may eventually explain their reasoning with a holier-than-thou attitude if repeatedly pressed to respond. They will often revert good-faith edits as vandalism, but certainly without a meaningful edit summary.

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

View by Guy Macon

This is a semi-outside view; while I am not involved in the current dispute, I, like pretty much everyone else who edits engineering topics, have had previous conflicts with Wtshymanski.

Wtshymanski is a tendentious editor who has been working against the basic principles that guide Misplaced Pages for a long, long time. He exhibits four very destructive behavior patterns.

First, he is absolutely convinced that he is right and everybody who disagrees with him is wrong, and he shows no hesitation in expressing his disdain for other editors through sarcasm and weasel-worded incivility.

Second, he sometimes gets things wrong from a technical standpoint, and when he does he is completely ineducable. He is always right and everybody who disagrees with him is always wrong. Usually he shows reasonable technical skills, but every so often he shows appalling ignorance of basic engineering knowledge. This is because his arrogance makes it impossible for him to learn, and his refusal to believe that any other editor could possibly know more than him makes him impossible to correct, even with citations to reliable sources.

Third, he sees such core Misplaced Pages policies as WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:RS and WP:V as impediments to him in his efforts to do what (to him) is the obvious right thing. He has a long history of trying every trick in the book to game the system and get his way without consensus or cooperation. Look at all the previous noticeboards about him for examples.

Fourth, he figures out exactly where the line is that will get him blocked and stands with his toes over the line. For example, because undiscussed deletions can get you blocked, he makes sure he discusses his deletions on the article talk page, but it isn't a serious discussion. He is just going through the motions to avoid being blocked. Instead of having a real discussion, he just dives into technical details in the hope that any non-technical admins evaluating his behavior won't understand and will dismiss it as a content dispute. He never, ever changes his position no matter what arguments any other editors make. Most people who harm Misplaced Pages are stupid. The average vandal, for example, is a total moron. Most of the noticeboards are optimized for dealing with dumbasses. Wtshymanski, on the other hand is smart. He constantly modifies his behavior so as to be right below the level where he gets unwanted attention from the admins.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
2. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
3. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Dennis Bratland

I like the cut of Wtshymanski's jib; he is a huge asset to Misplaced Pages. But he needs to somehow hold fire and pick fewer, and much more deserving targets.

When I try to wrap my head around the Rich Farmbrough debacle, I keep asking myself, why didn't they firmly reign this guy in back when it all wasn't so far out of hand? It didn't have to come to this. Just because an editor makes tons of valuable contributions is no reason to habitually look the other way on the fundamental rules of collaboration. It only spirals out of control.

Wtshymanski's brusque demeanor can be charming, up to a point. One appreciates it when the target of his venom is a purely disruptive vandal. I myself am happy to use less than warm and loving language with editors who are obstinate or vindictive. But the vast majority are editors who are only trying to make a positive contribution, and don't deserve any abuse. At all. Wtshymanski needs a firm shove from the admins that makes it clear that he must dial it back a few notches and behave in a distinctly more civil way towards editors who have shown no evidence of malice.

One reason to take definitive action now is to prevent things from getting so far out of hand down the road that a permanent block is called for, or else Wtshymanski takes offense and retires in a huff. Doing nothing will eventually lead, one way or the other, to Wtshymanski leaving, which would be a preventable loss for Misplaced Pages. Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
2. -- Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC) (yes, he's a real mix; I'd kick him in the butt myself sometimes, but an admin might do better; other times I appreciate him)
3. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by North8000

I've been at the same article many times with Wtshymanski but have never butted heads with them. I think that most of the above complaints are accurate. Plus sometimes biting newbies. I also think that Wtshymanski is a very valuable editor in other respects, having expertise and activity in various technical where such is really needed. Wtshymanski, why don't just start being genuinely nicer and more respectful to other editors? It's even a lot more fun that way. This could work out well. Let me know if I can help.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

View by DieSwartzPunkt

I have had relatively few interactions with Wtshymanski. I have however, noted quite a few edit wars running with other editors in articles that I have read through (I often find the comments in the discussion pages quite illuminating as to how an article arives to the form it is in).

Wtshymanski frequently adopts an offhand attitude to others who are attempting to improve the content of Misplaced Pages. In my opinion (for what it is worth), it suggests a person of considerable immaturity. I have noted in many interactions on discussion pages, that Wtshymanski is not in the slightest bit phased by any threat theat someone makes of escalating an edit war into some form of formal complaint. It seesm to me that Wtshymanski actually welcomes such a complaint, because when the decision comes down in his favour, it underwrites his offensive and offhand attitude.

Most professional controlling bodies have rules to govern their members. But these rules go further than just disciplining a member for breaking the rules. Often, a person can wreak havoc but not actually break any rules (sound familiar?). These bodies usually include a 'catch all offence' along the lines of 'bringing <whatever> into disrepute'. And that is what Wtshymanski does. He brings Misplaced Pages as a community project into disrepute by bullying other editors to the point where many seem to give up. Wtshymanski does not regard Misplaced Pages as a community project. He seems to regard it as his project, which (almost) everyone else is out to spoil.

Wtshymanski, does seem to patrol the engineering related articles and is quick to revert any vandalism (nothing wrong there). I do sometimes wonder what else he does when not sleeping because such vandalism does not stay there long. Unfortunately, he is also quick to revert any change to an article which, as far as I can see, seems a perfectly correct alteration. His knowledge does seem limited and he won't accept anything that does not figure in those limits. Further, once he has declared something as incorrect, when a reference in support is produced, either the reference is denegrated in some way or Wtshymanski pulls up another reference that in his view is superior. I frequently see his nonsense in discussion pages (Example: ), but I resist the temptation to wade in and point out his errors, because it is a waste of time.

Misplaced Pages is a community project. Like any community it has its bullies. This particular bully, clearly keeps within the rules (apart from overstepping the rules about abuse of other contributors with his sarcastic remarks). Misplaced Pages desparately needs a means of excluding those who seek to undermine the good faith atempts of others. Misplaced Pages must be a welcoming environment that encourages all who have a valid contribution to make to so do without fear of harrasment or abuse.

Wtshymanski is not alone in his attempts to spoil Misplaced Pages for others, but one problem at a time. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.