Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:29, 27 November 2012

Template:Archive box collapsible

"Misplaced Pages's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

Start a new discussion thread

Only 993065426 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993065426 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon (talk)

Negative Power Factor

Guy, I noticed that you placed a comment on our mutual friend's talk page which got the usual ignore and delete without response treatment (and the edit summary says it all). However, having been following the discussion at Talk:Power factor for some little while, one thing seems to be becoming more and more obvious. There seems to be a lack of consistency between engineers and measuring instrument manufacturers as to how to handle the concept of power flowing the wrong way. There also seems to be no world standard on the point. I take your point about Wtshymanski not willing to go with the flow (and he even has an illustration of an indicator in a power station showing negative power factor on his user page with a caption that speaks volumes). Wtshymanski has trotted out some IEEE document claiming that this is how it should be but, as someone pointed out, the IEEE don't rule the world. The one point that you made, and I have to agree, is that Wtshymanski has (as usual) decided that his method of handling the concept is the one that everyone else should adopt and that's what the article should say. After all, he is right and every one else is wrong.

The reality is: that as things stand, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the article should document that reverse power flow is handled by measuring instruments in different ways. But I doubt that Wtshymanski would allow that to stand for very long.

I wonder if the time is becoming ripe for another RfC. Perhaps the Admins might take note of a second one demonstrating that little has changed. As evidence for starters, I note two reversions of Wtshymanski reversions with a summary along the lines "Edit warring for the sake of it"; two Wtshymanski reversions with a summary "rv Anon edit" with no further clue as to what the objection was (Wtshymanski does not believe anon editors such as myself have a right to edit). And also the usual mergitis in spite of a specific instruction from an Admin to decist from doing so - and he still refuses to tidy up the merge properly having done so (he believes his way right and the Misplaced Pages policy wrong - not my opinion: Wtshymanski actually stated this in a response to that Admin). 86.159.159.194 (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Before making that decision, there are a couple of procedural issues. First, look at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#WP:RFC/USER: Reopen old or create new? for a discussion as to where to file. Then look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct#Minimum requirements. To meet the minimum requirements you need to post a calm, reasoned, and civil message on User talk:Wtshymanski explaining politely what he did wrong and requesting that he change the behavior in question or at least discuss it with you. Past performance suggests that any such request will be deleted with a sarcastic comment, but we need to WP:AGF and give him ample opportunity to change his ways. Any such post must be super-polite and should contain links to specific examples. If your post gets deleted I will try to reason with him. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that there has been no response to your request yet. However, myself and one or two other editors did attempt to add new sections to the closed RfC. We were duly slapped down by the Admin who originally closed the RfC who claimed that we could not do this and refered us to the instructions at the top of the RfC. The problem is: that adding a new section is exactly what the instructions did say. I pointed this out and got no response.

Before embarking on such a venture, the one thing that is definitely required is solid evidence. As you state, a suitably worded objection to his behaviour should be posted on his talk page (though I think we can both guess the outcome, we should at least show good faith ourselves). The other thing is to compile a list of transgressions so that evidence is easily to hand if we proceed - and the more evidence there is, the more it is likely to be taken seriously. I am prepared to allocate a dedicated talk page area to such evidence (keeps it in one place), but I first need to know if there is any Misplaced Pages policy covering such a page. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Such pages are allowed. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance#Preparation. Also see and Template:Userspace RFC draft. The entire Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance is well worth reading.

What we want to avoid is anything that even hints at being a Misplaced Pages:Attack page. The goal is still to convince him to not misbehave -- blocking is not our first choice -- and we need to be careful that the last RFCU not having been effective does not influence us. We need to be scrupulously fair, and the RFCU needs to be calm, logical, and evidence based. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have set up a collection page for evidence at User talk:DieSwartzPunkt/WTS. Recognising that I will undoubtedly invite others to contribute, I have put a set of guidance rules at the top of the page. If you feel they are not right, please amend as you think. If you have anything to add, then please add. Since Wtshymanski follows my edit trail, I do not doubt that he will find the page. Hopefully, it might just persuade him to adjust his editing style. I am (not very) hopeful that we do not as far as another RfC, but let's wait and see. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I just finished my first try at organizing this. It still needs a lot of work, so please edit to suit. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Strewth you have been busy! I had not anticipated actually drafting an RfC at this juncture as I agreed with you that the primary aim is to change his behaviour (and if that can be achieved without getting to the RfC stage, then all well and good - who am I kidding!?). I had assumed that the current plan was evidence gathering and adding the appropriate requests to WTS's talk page and logging the lack of any attempt at engaging in meaningful dialogue (and the first failed attempt has already been logged).

If you check the revision history of WTS's talk page, there is a clear pattern. General discussion seems to remain until it is a week or so old (nothing really wrong here), but any critisism from any quarter on WTS's tendentious editing style results in an immediate page clear. It is obvious that WTS does not want any such critisism tarnishing his erroneous self belief to visiting editors that he is anything other than a model editor. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I figured that this is going to go to a RFCU sooner or later, so I got a head start on formatting the RFCU.

As for deleting criticism, True, but completely allowable. It is only natural to criticize Wtshymanski for something like that, but I also suspect that you would have ignored it if someone else did it. That kind of thing, even though it is normal human behavior, just reinforces Wtshymanski's belief that all his critics are idiots. There are plenty of legitimate things to complain about, so you should carefully weed out anything that is questionable from your list. Far better for the closing admin to find five legitimate complaints that to find ten complaints and then have to weed out half as being complaints about allowable behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken and agreed. Even though deletion of the attempt at discussion may be allowable. It is surely still evidence of an attempt to discuss the editing behaviour, and (more importantly) a refusal on WTS's part to engage in such a discussion. Once evidence is reasonably populated, it should be a simple matter to extract the most pertinent evidence for the RfC and discard the boring stuff. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Focus on the refusal to discuss, which is against policy, and not on the deletion, which is allowed on his own talk page. (He could do both by deleting it on his talk page and opening a discussion on your talk page or an article talk page. Clearly you don't care where it is discussed.) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wo don't yet meet the threshold for an RfC because two editors have not yet attempted to resolve any of the issues so far in the vidence list (since the 1st RfC). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Brickfilm DRN

Hello. You may have misread the thread, there, when you said you'd wait until "after I see McGeddon's comments" - I've already replied to your Digg/Reddit example. --McGeddon (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey BUCKO you gave me crap on my talk page because I exposed that that shitty band pussy riot is shitty. What is wrong with you? THEY ARE a shitty band. Their music aint even good asshat.

• Userspace RFC drafts