Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

All six or so registered editors who have participated in this RfC agree that Wtshymanski's mode of contributing to Wikipedia is disruptive. They agree that some of his contributions have merit, but that this is far outweighed by what the commentators consider to be a rude and battleground-like conduct and a lack of the collaborative spirit required for the participation in this project.

Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required. However, I invite Wtshymanski to take the concerns voiced here under serious consideration. Administrative action may be requested if the conduct that has been the focus of this discussion continues.  Sandstein  11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

---

To remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 07:40, 14 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 Wikipedia (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. Wikipedia 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 [1].

[The following has been added after Wtshymanski's response below and after the views expressed below. It has been added following a request on the talk page.]

There are further and major ongoing issues concerning Wtshymanski's behaviour and atitude toward his fellow editors. Wtshymanski has an attitude that his fellow editors are only here to cause Wikipedia harm. As noted under 'evidence', Wtshymanski himself posted this response on his own talk page, "Most editors are here to hurt the encyclopedia, not to help it.". The nature of his editing and the almost continuous stream of caustic and sarcastic remarks left in edit summaries to his 'corrections' of others contributions is unacceptable. In particular, Wtshymanski, adopts a hostile tone toward new editors who may not be as familiar with the environment as he is. This can do little, if anything, to encourage these 'newbies' to consider contributing further.

Many of the worst examples occur after an editor has made (what should be assumed to be) a good faith edit, where either a genuine error has been made or even a simple typo while adding the information. Wtshymanski never assumes anything so added is in good faith. The resonse is a revert and a caustic, sarcastic comment in the edit summary.

Of particular concern is his attitude that only he can possibly be correct. Whatever anyone else's field of expertise is, Wtshymanski will his decide using his apparently limited knowledge of a subject what the outcome will be. Any attempt by any other editor to veer away from the flawed outcome is met with the usual caustic and sarcastic commentry, usually in the edit summary. Whilst it has to be acknowledged that Wtshymanski does have some knowledge, it seems to be in a fairly narrow field (possibly surrounding power engineering). However, he feels that that limited knowledge allows him to decide what may or may not be included in articles outside that knowledge, notably in articles related to electronics.

Wtshymanski, will also switch horses when the situation suits avoiding a problem. Since his change of British English to American which triggered the events leading to this RfC, he has been doing everything possible to try and confer an air of not caring about what language variant an article is written in (and indeed his response below makes that very claim as a justification for removing language variant tags from articles. It should be noted, that although Wikipedia considers them important (otherwise they would never have been created), and the editors that use them consider they are useful (otherwise they wouldn't use them), Wtshymanski has unilaterally decided that that they are 'un-useful' and that this somehow justifies him deleting them as he sees fit. He has even placed a neutral language tag on his user page ([2]).

Wikipedia does not allow editors to assume ownership of individual articles, for good reasons. Wtshymanski has made a supreme effort to try and assume ownership of most, if not all, of the engineering related articles.

The real problem is that Wtshymanski tries to remain (just) within the letter of the rules under which Wikipedia must operate to succeed. But he certainly doesn't remain within the spirit.

Desired outcome

I beleive that the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: [diff1]

Wtshymanski 1st removal: [diff2]

Wtshymanski 2nd removal: [diff2]

Warning on Wtshymanski talk: [diff3]

Dismissal of warning [diff4] dismissed as "... threats and bluster)

Wtshymanski 3rd removal: [diff5] 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?

A quote from yet another frustrated editor, "Let me say, that I myself nearly am giving up.". (User:Rdengler) Found here.

Wtshymanski has just merged two articles this and this. This despite there being no support on the discussion page here. In fact one person objected, but Wtshymanski decided to merge it anyway, demonstrating once again that the opinion of another editor should not stand in his way. And Wtshymanski has retagged the resultant article for merging elsewhere (but not the target article breaching WP:M.

And now the techno-babble. A discussion going on here. Wtshymanski is trying desparately to drag Gyrator circuits into the argument and proving that he doesn't understand the basic concepts of inductance. He is trying to support a poor definition at the head of the article which tells us that inductance has an effect on a circuit, but not what that effect is. He seems to be desparate that the effect should remain a mystery. Just what we need in an ecyclopeadia, an article that leaves the reader guessing what it is all about.

Following on from the previous paragraph, Talk:Inductance#Article lead is worth a look. If you extract the serious discussion on the article lead, you will have 8 to 10 serious comments about the article lead (what the discussion was kicked off for). All the extraneous material (and there is plenty of it) is Wtshymanski attempting to block the addition of a triply sourced definition and retain the one referred to in the last paragraph ([3]). This explanation tells us that inductance has an effect. It is left to the reader to figure out what the effect is. There is also considerable discussion attempting to point out where Wtshymanski is wrong. No less than five other edotors are pointing out his error. But Wtshymanski will not accept it. He has read some out of context fragment in a book and by thunder he is going to stick to it as his understanding. During that prelonged discussion, Wtshymanski introduces no less than 5 irrelevant side issues in an attempt to leverage his point of view to the exclusion of all others.

As a crowning glory, Wtshymanski then has the affrontery to complain about the 'mess' (his description - not mine) that he has caused ([4] Goto 'Bad spot in the intro'). This is a blatent attempt at Wtshymanski portraying himself as the innocent party and that it is everyone else that is the problem.

Reversion of an assumed good faith edit (no evidence to suggest otherwise) [5] (Note the caustic comment and the lack of assumption of good faith. And the original contributer confirms that it was a typo [6].

An editor mistyped the number of pins in a chip on the article Single-board microcontroller. He typed '49' instead of '40' (an easy typo given that the two keys are adjacent to each other. Wtshymanski certainly did not assume this was a good faith typo. He has been almost continuously rubbing that editor's nose in the mistake ever since. See the edit summary to this comment on the talk page [7]. The reference was even included on Wtshymanski's page of rules and errors [8] (See 4th entry

Applicable policies and guidelines

WP:ENGVAR

WP:AGF

WP:CIVIL

WP:RS

WP:V

WP:M

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Attempts by certifier 109.145.22.224

1. Original change of British English to American ([9]). With no evidence to the contrary, it was assumed at this point that it was a good faith edit from someone who had not realised that the article was originally written in British English. Article was changed and the ENGVAR tag added to talk page as a guide to future editors: [10]
2. Wtshymanski's first removal of the tag, which we now know is one that he has unilaterally decided that he doesn't want in Wikipedia: [11]
3. Notification to Wtshymanski about removal of ENGVAR tag: [12]
4. Wtshymanski deletion of warning (note the edit summary - this is standard text): [13]
5. Restoration of ENGVAR tag following warning: [14]
6. Wtshymanski removal of ENGVAR tag (note particularly his edit summary where he dismisses it as something he does not acknowledge): [15]
7. Restoration of ENGVAR tag with a request not to delete language tag: [16]
8. Once again removal (Note the edit summary here with a reference to 'Inidan English' possibly as a smokescreen [No such word as 'Inidan']. One might be tempted to assume that it was a typo for 'Indian' but that makes no sense either since there has never been a suggestion that Indian English is involved. Also his claim that there is no need for a tag that has been specifically created for just this use: [17]. A note was added to the talk page inviting discussion from Wtshymanski: [18]
9. Wtshymanski never responded. He did not delete the ENGVAR tag again either (but that would have been 4RR).
10. Aother editor weighed into the discussion, supporting my view ([19])
11. Another editor entered inviting Wtshymanski to explain his point at 8 above ([20]). No response has been forthcoming to this request either. This is a normal response from Wtshymanski - to refuse to discuss a point.

Attempts by certifier Guy Macon

1. Here is my first attempt to engage Wtshymanski in a conversation about his behavior: [21] 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: [22] 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:[23].
3. My third attempt: [24]
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.[25] He deleted it, accusing me of being sacrastic.[26] I explained that I was not being sarcastic,[27] and then self-reverted. Later I tried some more positive reinforcement.[28] Three minutes later he blanked the page without responding.[29]
5. Many other editors have attempted to engage Wtshymanski in conversations about his disruptive behavior and had their comments deleted without response: [30][31][32][33]

Attempts by certifier 66.127.55.46

1. Placeholder. I unsuccessfully tried to discuss Wtshymanski's aggressive deletions with him a year or so ago. I'll post some diffs later. I'd like to add adhering to WP:PRESERVE (part of WP:Editing policy) to the desired outcome of the RFC. 66.127.55.46 (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Attempts by certifier C4

Other attempts

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. I have tried on multiple occasions to resolve the issues raised in the above statement of the dispute. My latest effort is here: Diff1Diff2Diff3 (No response) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Numerous attempts have been made to discuss other aspects of his behaviouir with Wtshymanski at his talk page. The response is always exactly the same. Deletion of the comment with not so much as acknowledgement. See [here]. Note the continual reversion to a blanked page after a comment is made. --109.145.22.224 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 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.
2. North8000 (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Based (only) on observations at about 6 articles.

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.}

The wide-ranging and unconnected nature of the concerns are difficult to respond to concisely.

"This involves a persistent editor who routinely deletes or modifies other editor's good faith contributions. " Yes, that's what editing is. I've left the language tag at the subject article as it is now.

I think tagging articles with a "UK English" or "US English" is on a level with hyphen-twiddling or white-space tweaking; it's particularly irritating to have a dialect tag appear on an article that has no particular reference to the dialect in question. I don't know why UK IP addresses seem to be so very fond of slapping the UK-English tag on random articles that have nothing to do with the dialect as spelled in India and the UK. It doesn't improve the article. Any literate English speaker using the Web knows that there's often more than one way to spell a word and that accepted spellings are a matter of local preference. It's an un-useful tag and I frequently remove it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

Additional details:

Here is one example of the problems that arise when dealing with Wtshymanski. I was trying to explain to Wtshymanski something that he did not understand -- that all 8-bit 40-pin microprocessors and microcontrollers without exception use a Von Neuman architecture because a Harvard or Modified Harvard architecture would require at least 50 pins (8+16 for instruction memory, 8+16 for data memory, and 2 for power and ground).[34]

Alas, in the middle of explaining this to him again and again (he never did "get it", BTW), I made a typo. My finder slipped and I typed "49 pins" instead of "40 pins", followed by a cite showing 40 pins as the correct number.[35]

He pointed out my error with a bizarre edit summary, meanwhile repeating his basic misunderstanding about Von Neuman and Harvard architecture.[36]

I corrected my typo,[37] and tried to get the conversation back to the issue at hand, only to have Wtshymanski accuse me of purposely lying to the reader.[38]

This went on for several pages, including a snarky edit comment about my 40 --> 49 typo.[39]

Having lost that argument, Wtshymanski decided to mock me on one of his user pages.[40]

Six months later, I noticed the slur and challenged him on it,[41] then arbcom member Elen of the Roads nominated the page for deletion,[42] saying "this page ... appear[s] to be just Wtshymanski taking a hidden pop at a person he lost an argument with, or ridiculing people for making typing errors."[43]

I then tried to resolve this issue. I am going to reference the entire conversation to give the reader a feel for what dealing with Wtshymanski is like.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]Above conversation in threaded form

This is just one small example. Wtshymanski does this sort of thing to several editors every week. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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)
4. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Based (only) on observations at about 6 articles.
5. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Deucharman (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Dennis Bratland

I like the cut of Wtshymanski's jib; he is a huge asset to Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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)
4. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
5. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
6. North8000 (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Based (only) on observations at about 6 articles.
7. Weak agreement. I agree with the observations, but if this blows up into an eventual indef à la Rich Farmbrough, that's fine by me. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Deucharman (talk) 15:30, 15 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 complaints on this page 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia as a community project into disrepute by bullying other editors to the point where many seem to give up. Wtshymanski does not regard Wikipedia 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: [54]), but I resist the temptation to wade in and point out his errors, because it is a waste of time.

Wikipedia 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). Wikipedia desparately needs a means of excluding those who seek to undermine the good faith atempts of others. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
2. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
3. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Nailed it.
4. North8000 (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Based (only) on observations at about 6 articles.
5. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Deucharman (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of editing (contributed by DieSwartzPunkt)

I thought it might be useful to anyone reading this, to see a breakdown of the nature of Wtshymanski's editing. This breakdown is based on the last 250 edits up to 04:32 on the 16th May 2012. This covers less than 5 days editing! Some spells cover almost 16 hours at a stretch so one must wonder when Wtshymanski eats, works and sleeps.

I have made this breakdown to highlight the amount of 'contribution' to Wikipedia that Wtshymanski gives.

Disclaimer: I should point out that some judgement call was required on some edits, but I tried to err on the side of caution. Anyone else performing a similar analysis might easily come up with slightly different numbers - but not more than a count or three.

Number of reversions of obvious vandalism: 54

There is nothing wrong with deleting vandalism, however, I do not really consider this to be a real contribution because if Wtshymanski didn't revert the vandalism, someone else would.

Number or rewrites of other's contributions: 78

Different editors are inevitably going to write the prose used in Wikipedia in different ways using different ways of presenting their information. All 78 of the above edits are Wtshymanski rewriting the English or rearranging the presentation to meet his requirements. No discussion ever took place anywhere.

Number of edits with stupid, sarcastic or uncivil edit summaries: 24

I have not broken down beyond the above category because the distinction between them is subjective. In any event, in my view there is no real excuse for edit summaries that do not confine themselves to a factual description of the edit.

Number of edits where a proposal to merge was tagged in both source and destination articles (as per WP:M): 0

Number of edits proposing deletion of an article or merging articles: 25

Number of edits merging articles where concensus was reached on talk page: 0

Number of edits merging articles: 14

Number of edits merging articles and maintaining link to source article talk page and edit summary (as per [WP:M]): 0

These speak for themselves.

Number of edits where maintenance tags were deleted for no valid reason: 6

Number of edits where someone else's contribution was deleted with stupid, sarcastic or uncivil edit summary: 4

I have not included any edits that are made to any talk pages (34) beyond the edit summary, because this would require an inordinate amount of time to analyse them, but suffice to say, far too many contained stupid, sarcastic or uncivil remarks in the body of the comment. Most were leveraging Wtshymanski's viewpoint. In particular, following a lead from above, check this [55]. This is a comment made to this very RfC's talk page. Most of the contribution is trite, but check the edit summary that went with it.

In the interests of fairness:

Number of edit summaries where a legitimate change was made to an article: 26 (that's just 10%!)

And an interesting statistic:

Number of edits that added a significant contribution to the content of an article: 0

As I have noted above, Wtshymanski is not alone in his efforts to disrupt Wikipedia. In my experience, all the disruptive editors that I have come into contact with have a couple of things in common. They rewrite, delete, critisise others contributions, but contribute nothing of substance of their own.

Users who endorse this summary (but not necessarily the actual numbers):

1. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC) -- I spent about half an hour randomly browsing those 250 edits as a sanity check, and the above numbers are about right. If anyone seriously disputes the numbers, I will be glad to perform a rigorous verification and publish my log.
3. 109.145.22.224 (as 86.169.33.6 (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)) -- Good catch! I had not twigged the lack of positive contribution angle. A quick check shows numbers are in the right ball park.

View by Andy Dingley

I need this RFC like a hole in the head. Far too busy to waste time on the toothless RFC/U, and certainly on Wtshymanski. So this will be quick.

Credit where it's due:

• He seems a genuine editor, not your basic troll. He wants to improve things, I'm happy to accept.
• He can work wiki-tech
• He writes competent English prose
• He mucks out the vandal swamp
• When he understands a topic, he can make useful improvements to it.

Now the bad stuff. This editor has, IMHE, caused more trouble and general strife to me personally than any other editor - including the outright trolls. I would love to see an indef ban and block, and think that WP would be all the better without him. His contributions aren't so great that others couldn't take up the slack. His negative effects _on_others_ far outweigh any positive contribution. His effects on articles aren't great either, but it's his _toxic_ effect on other editors that's the worst of it. Power electronics and Power electronics technology for an example that's not personally related.

The World Is Wrong

He's always right. No compromise. No backing down. No acceptance that other editors might have a point, be this on subject knowledge, wiki style, or just having a basic difference of opinion. This isn't changed by either subjective remembrance of 30-year history (see Single-board microcontroller) or change and "mellowing" (fat chance) over time. See Heathkit H-11 and categorization as a home computer.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

He knows some stuff - electrical engineering, I believe. He seems to know far less about electronics, computing and electrics that's about automotive rather than power generation & transmission(?) See Ignition magneto and Magneto in general. Yet not knowing the subject is no barrier at all to W. If he's decided the answer, he's going to beat it into that encyclopedia with a stick. Just look at the misunderstanding of Harvard architecture demonstrated at Single-board microcontroller.

Mergeitis

An obsession with merging articles on tenuous grounds. Usually because articles are weak and need development, not because the topics are weak. See {Special Atomic Demolition Munition, Medium Atomic Demolition Munition} into Atomic demolition munitions just today.

These are also bad merges by how they're carried out. Either not flagged for discussion, poorly flagged for discussion (tagged on one article, not both, no |discuss= parameter on the merge tag so that the discussion gets split, no discussion started, no case presented for the merge, multiple merges with discussion defaulted to two different locations without visibility that it's a multiple merge (see MADM above)).

No time allowed for discussion after tagging. See MADM above.

Merging without tagging afterwards to track the edit history. Warned for that recently.

And despite all the stuff above, these are frequently just bad ideas for merging.

Also Talk:Non-volatile_memory

Sticks & dead horses

Never drops it. See Heathkit H-11

Toxicity

Probably the worst of it all. Continuous, unending sarcasm and wikilawyering borderline attacks and sniping at other editors. Despite spending plenty of time in the world of ALLCAPS, a total failure by admins to do a damned thing about it.

Look at 2N3055 and the WP: board-tagged transistor AfDs of that period. I really ought to go back and write that article. I made some effort and acquired the great sources that are available to make an interesting article. I haven't, because I was left afterwards with zero enthusiasm for going near anything tainted by involvement with Wtshymanski. The funny thing is that I even agreed with his claimed principle for deletion: we don't need "parts list" article on a string of unimportant, non-notable transistors. Yet a handful of them are notable and have significant involvement in the history of electronics - and these were the very ones he was out to delete.

I would gladly swap Wtshymanski for user:MickMacNee or user:Peter Damian. The two of them combined were much less toxic.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Weakly due to my more limited experience. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
4. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Deucharman (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
6. 109.145.22.224 (Currently trading as 86.169.33.6 (talk) 09:48, 16 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.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.