Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wtshymanski/Griping

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep. A different way forward was indicated; consensus is to keep. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski/Griping


While I'm sure a lot of us enjoy the "dumb things said in school examinations" type lists that circulate on the internet, and probably have our own private lists of really dumb things that we have come across, this page isn't one of those lists. Instead, it takes a series of content disputes, often that the page author failed to win, and attaches comments as if they were dumb things said by the other party. But in many cases, no-one ever said them - they appear to be just Wtshymanski taking a hidden pop at a person he lost an argument with, or ridiculing people for making typing errors. It is really not conducive to collegial editing to maintain this sort of thing on the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * keep temporarily - at least while Requests for comment/Wtshymanski runs. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by page creator Oh, if I were mocking people for typing errors, I'd be the first to get blasted - as someone who routinely types "teh" instead of "the", for example, I'd be the first down the chute. My various lists are amusing, to me at least, and even occasionally attract other editor's similar thoughts. I must have missed Requests for comment/Wtshymanski, no doubt due to my regular talk page blanking. Now the "dumb things said in school examinations" have a justification - "But I read it on the Wikipedia!". The list also serves me as a reminder of various Wikipedia idioms I can look for and correct, such as "the fact that" or "It is important to note that..." - burning off these compositional warts is a good way to tour the Wikipedia.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "if I were mocking people for typing errors"
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtshymanski&oldid=490293401
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This sure does look like Wtshymanski mocking people for typing errors... --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Inquiry - Should this diff be taken as an indication that you would like the page deleted? Achowat (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please leave it, as I may need to keep a working page for other temporary projects. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, just wondering. Achowat (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Wtshymanski has replaced the offensive material with unrelated material that appears to be unrelated to "griping". Pre-deletion version is here: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wtshymanski/Griping&oldid=490279461 ]. Also see [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wtshymanski#Not_even_remotely_fair. ] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "offensive" ia a point of view, I found the material in question to be amusing as it lampooned the self-importance and/or cluelessness you often find in Wikipedia editing. Good thing you're following me around and pointing at my every move - we wouldn't want the fine impartial folks to miss any of me derelictions now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have pointed out to you twice before, I have no problem with being lampooned if I am actually being self-important or clueless. You didn't do that. You accused me of self-importance and cluelessness when all I did was to make a simple 0 --> 9 typo, which I quickly corrected. And you keep repeating the accusation. That's offensive. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I wouldn't necessarily oppose deleting the history at this point, I also see no harm in keeping it as it is now so long as Wtshymanski appreciates that such things tend to make people unhappy regardless of intent, and that creating the sort of thing again would not be in anyone's best interests... I may want reassess this depending on how the RfC pans out, if I notice, but... eh.  — Isarra ༆ 19:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't care about this page and neither should you.  And some of the (pre-nomination version) stuff is actually useful.  A list of his AfD successes and failures that shows he has a low percentage of prevailing at AfD (compared to typical AfD outcome %s)?  That's useful for me know.  Now let's go edit and write some articles!!--Milowent • hasspoken  02:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Wtshymanski has been the subject of many noticeboard reports in the past, and there is no indication that this pattern will not continue in the future. The history of this page is useful as evidence in those discussions. Plus, IMO we should give editors wide leeway as to what they can do in userspace, even if some of those things are annoying. Elen of the Roads' characterization was spot on, but Wtshymanski's non-collegial behavior is something that should be addressed encyclopedia-wide, not by playing whac-a-mole with specific instances of it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. WP:ROPE, on the condition that people are sensible enough not to give him the prerogative of having it speedied in the future if it's ever used as evidence of his attitude. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. No problems here. As edited. The user's edit implies that the editor accepts that previous versions were unacceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

He is already sneaking his objectionable material back in. As Elen of the Roads correctly pointed out:

"it takes a series of content disputes, often that the page author failed to win, and attaches comments as if they were dumb things said by the other party. But in many cases, no-one ever said them - they appear to be just Wtshymanski taking a hidden pop at a person he lost an argument with, or ridiculing people for making typing errors."

Wtshymanski's latest addition of objectionable material is:

"If it were allowed, I'd add the observation that the Wikipedia teaches you that ferrite is metal, and that a coil with DC going through it has no inductance. Oh, and you can make anything a conductor if you silver-plate it. And 1 metre equals 3 yards." (with the edit summary of "Strictly Forbidden".)

Wtshymanski is once again confusing Ferrite (iron) with Ferrite (magnet) and acting as if the editors who keep explaining the difference to him are idiots.

Nobody ever made the claim about inductance he lists. He is characterizing as stupid a bunch of good-faith attempts to discuss the difference between what inductance is and what it does. DC is not affected by inductance; it exists but does nothing and cannot be measured in that situation.

Anything that is silver-plated becomes a conductor. Someone was trying to explain to him that at very high frequencies it doesn't matter whether the core is plastic or metal See skin effect.

I don't have the stomach to dig through all of Wtshymanski's interaction to find it, but I would give ten to one odds that "1 metre equals 3 yards" is a simple feet/yards error and Wtshymanski omitting the word "about" or "approximately."

Maybe we should delete this page as being an attractive nuisance. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would rather see blocking used to respond to the disruptive behaviour. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm on SmoJo's side; if the page was causing a disruption, it would make sense to delete it. But that's not the case. The editor (at least as you summerize it) is causing the disruption and WP:ANI is probably a more appopriate venue. Achowat (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, both of you. I agree. -Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.