Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive879

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.[edit]

Closed with restriction on reverts of IP edits, see below--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. This is behaviour that was previously addressed by a Request for comment in 2012.

Since that time, Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors. Many are vandalism (no problem), but many are good faith edits. There are far too many examples to document here, so I have restricted examples to just those from the past three weeks.

17th Feb

IP edit: [1]

Wtshymanski revert: [2]

This was a good faith and basically correct edit. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds of being 'ungrammatical and out of place'. It could easily have been made gramatical and was exactly where it needed to be.

18th Feb

IP edit: [3]

Wtshymanski revert: [4]

This was a good faith edit and technically correct. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds that the output is not light despite infra-red often being described as "infra-red light" as indeed it is throughout the rest of the article. Further: infra-red light emitting diodes are described as precisely that - "light emitting diodes". The revert actually made the article worse because it no longer told the reader what the 900 nm output is (could be an electrical signal for example).

25th Feb

IP edit: [5]

Wtshymanski revert: [6]

The article was PRODed by Wtshymnski. The IP editor challenged the PROD by deleting it as he is perfectly entitled to do. WTS simply reverted the deletion doubtless because he believes that IP address editors should not be allowed to challenge PRODs even though they are. (The WP:PROD procedure clearly states that a PROD is aborted if the tag is deleted and it must not be rePRODed.)

25th Feb

IP edit: [7]

Wtshymanski revert: [8]

The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism', and has done so by copy-pasting back an old version of the article (intermediate edits preventing a stright 'undo'). In his haste to revert yet another IP address editor, WTS also pasted back a spelling mistake and a 'coauthors' parameter to a CS1 template which is deprecated. Thus WTS corrected one error but reintroduced two.

2nd Mar

IP edit: [9]

Wtshymanski revert: [10]

Again a potentially good faith edit from an IP address editor . Once again, WTS makes no pretence at assuming that the edit is good faith and it is dismissed as vandalism. Another editor, Andy Dingley independently made the same point on Wtshymanski's talk page. Nothing can be inferred from the editing history as the IP address resolves to a college in India so it is anybody's guess how many real users are behind it.

It is known that Wikipedia is always wanting to recruit productive editors for the project. Inevitably, many potential editors will start as IP address editors before creating an account - provided they find the environment welcoming. Wtshymanski has long held the view that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia and has said so (see RfC referenced above for more). This may be Wtshymanski's view but it is known that it is not the view of the project and Wtshymanski has no right to impose his view in the face of the project's

IP address editors can be productive and offer quality editing to the project. Deliberate wholesale reverting such edits does not provide the welcoming environment, that such editors need if they are to be encouraged to staty.

As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions [11]. This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with DieSwartzPunkt The diffs shown, show the removals called vandalism and they're not, further when he's challenged by a non-ip user, he's been letting the edits stand. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
18 Feb IP edit was absolutely correct and Wtshymanski revert is an error, because what it emits is light (everything that involves photon is light). Some part of the entire light band is visible, but other invisible parts are also called.
I agree with DieSwartzPunkt's observation for all other instances too. – nafSadh did say 17:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What's the point in this ANI post? Is this an "incident"? Maybe. What administrator action is desired here though?
Once upon a time we had WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U. Neither of them were likely to be effective (WP:Requests_for_comment/Wtshymanski wasn't), but at least they were an attempt by WP to have a means of resolving such issues. Admins won't act over such issues - it would involve making value judgements about other editors and that never happens. Even when it's not a popular editor who can rally their clique of supporters.
WP needs to restore WQA, RFC/U or something else in that line. This ANI post won't achieve that much though. Wtshymanski will, as always, back off for just long enough to dodge the bullet (see the RFCU closing comments) and then will be back, just the same as before. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not proven The accusation is:
"Wtshymanski is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering-based articles that he routinely watches." (typo and punctuation corrected)
and, doubling down, just in case we might have thought the meaning was open to interpretation:
"Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors." (emphasis was in the original)
But a quick perusal of the history of each of the pages diff'd above will show many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski. Therefore the claim of "any" is specious. Some were let stand, some were reverted by others, "others" not excepting Andy Dingly and DieSwartzPunkt. There are also many edits by IPs that were reverted by W. with completely defensible reasons and edit summaries.
Perhaps W. is too quick to assume that IPs' edits are wrong. (From my own experience, given the number of IPs' edits I've corrected that were wrong, this would not be an unreasonable bias on W.'s part.) I believe AD and DSP are similarly too eager to find fault with W.'s edits, and this patently absurd accusation of "any and all" is a result. Jeh (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski."
So because he didn't get all of them, his behaviour over the ones that he did revert should be discounted?
This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits. It's about his assumption that for any anon edit he reverts (frequently a justified revert) he assumes that it's deliberate vandalism, and he assumes this because of who made it, not the quality of the edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits." That's odd, because that's exactly what you DSP said it was about. If it's really about his over-use of the vandalism charge, then you DSP should have said that from the beginning. And then every one of your DSP's your diffs needs to show an edit summary by W. with a demonstrably unjust accusation of vandalism, or they don't support your position. If it turns out that a clear majority of W's edits to IPs' edits do not include an unjust accusation of vandalism, your case gets rather weak. Jeh (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Jeh, I know that you're just about the only friend Wtshymanski has round here, so it's not surprising that you've rushed to defend him. However please actually read this post first. I didn't raise this. I haven't posted any diffs, so I don't know which diffs you're complaining about. Mind, it would have to be very blinkered to not see the problem with what he's doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Correct you are. I missed the correct attribution among all the rest of the periodic Wtshymanski pile-on. I have edited my above accordingly. But as for your "I don't know which diffs" claim, there is only one set associated with the complaint. So I think that if you were to hazard a guess as to which diffs in this talk page section I'm referring to, you'd either be correct, or you'd have to pretend to be a complete idiot. And we all know you are not that, so please drop the "I don't know what you're referring to" act. You're smarter than that, and I'd thank you to assume that I'm smart enough to not buy it. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
You claimed that Wtshymanski had allowed some IP edits to stand, but failed to provide any diffs. In the short discussion that I had on this at Wtshymanski's talk page, he made the same claim. He then obliged with a single diff that supported that position. But he had to go all the way back to 2007 to find it. There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand, but as they are obvious corrections of errors, reverting them would be vandalism in itself (though as in case four above, that is not always an obstacle). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, please. You took that "2007" bit seriously?
So. "There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand." Your words. Doesn't that rather contradict your accusation? Do I have to quote it yet again, to remind you of what it was? Do you understand what it takes to disprove a universal claim? It takes one counterexample. One.
The first diff above is from DC motor. From the first page of 50 edits, working from the bottom (I am not counting IP edits that were clearly vandalism, either reverted by W. or otherwise):
[12] IP made stylistic wording changes to picture caption. W. did not revert.
[13] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.
[14] IP wikilinked Hybrid car. W. did not revert.
[15] IP made minor grammar correction. W. did not revert.
[16] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.
[17] minor word correction by IP. Nobody reverted.
[18] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.
[19] vandalism by IP. Rv by Wtshymanski.
[20] IP added redlinks. Rv by Andy Dingley.
[21] vandalism by IP (added blank lines). Rv by someone else.
[22] vandalism by IP. Rv by ClueBot.
[23] vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by ClueBot.
[24] vandalism by IP. rv by someone else.
[25] vandalism by IP. rv by ClueBot.
[26] vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by someone else.
[27] IP removed a blank line (non-rendering edit). Not reverted that I could find.
[28] Wtshymanski edit. Unrelated to previous IP edits.
[29] vandalism by IP (blanking). Fixed by ClueBot.
[30] IP added an ungrammatic sentence: "It has very high starting resistance so that it would use in that kind of equipments which needs a very high starting torque." Wtshymanski reverted with comment "out of place unclear and ungrammatical" (this is the rv DSP complained about).
[31] minor grammatical correction by IP. Wording improved by me.
19 edits by IPs total (I am counting successive edits by the same IP, with none intervening, as just one).
11 of these were vandalism. Of those, ONE was reverted by Wtshymanski.
6 were good edits. Of those, W. reverted NONE. Two of them were significant changes to content.
1 was a good faith but erroneous edit, reverted by Andy Dingley.
1 was what I would call "legitimately problematic". Wtshymanski reverted it. Yes, it could have been improved.
It seems clear to me that W., far from reverting "any and all" edits by IPs as you accused, was far more selective. He in fact reverted only one of 11 IPs' vandalism edits, one problematic edit, and none of six good edits. I would say that the evidence from this article, one of those you complained about, refutes your accusation rather soundly. The evidence does not even support a claim of "W. erroneously reverts most IP edits", with or without an accusation of vandalism. (I would also say that it shows there is ample reason to view IP edits with a particularly skeptical eye.)
But you are the one making the claim, so you are the one who should be providing complete summaries of recent diffs. Not just a few cherry-picked examples. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The above is non-evidence. 12 edits were reverted by others. That proves nothing except that someone beat Wtshymanski to the punch in each case. Even Wtshymanski presumably sleeps and works from time to time. As already stated, Wtshymanski usually does not revert an edit, if it leaves the article wrong (6 edits). And the last 'legitimately problematic' one, is similar to case 1 of this complaint. 'It could have been improved'. Yes, and Wtshymanski is as capable of improving it as anyone else, but if the edit had been left, someone would have improved it.
I have not 'cherry-picked' evidence as you claim. I have listed every IP address revert since 17th Feb. If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled. But this was stated in the original complaint. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
So, I provided the diffs you asked for, and you moved the goalposts. But then you want to stick by the original complaint? The original complaint was:
"Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. "
That has been disproven (with great ease, just as most generalizations can be). You listed "every IP address revert since 17 Feb"? And you found a grand total of five? W. has made 'prox 700 edits since 17 Feb. So less than 1% of W's edits in the last three weeks were reverts of IP edits that you think were unjustly described as vandalism? You're going to have to find much more compelling evidence than that.
"If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled." So you can find a few examples out of several hundred edits, not mention that they're picked out of seven hundred edits, and you think that makes your case? This has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt. Makes me wonder if the evidence in W.'s other ANI, etc., cases, at least the ones brought by DSP, AD, and GM was as tenuous? Jeh (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the "problematic edit" by the IP (severe grammar problem) was the one you listed. Yes, it could have been improved. The fact remains that W.'s revert of the IP's edit left the article better than it had been after the IP. So we have a justified edit by W., and your complaint is that he should have done more. Got it. Jeh (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Andy, above you asked (?) what the point is. I think you or someone should ask for something specific. I looked at W's block log and this seems to be an annual affair (that somehow skipped last spring). The first block for this in 2012 was a day; the block for this in 2013 was a week. There is a clear pattern of the same behavior continuing, which is a violation of AGF and is DISRUPTIVE. So you should propose a longer time-limited block (say 2 months?) or perhaps an indef. It would probably take community consensus for either, and this is indeed the place to propose that and get consensus for it. But in the block proposal you should make a good, concise, ANI-ready statement of the case, if you want it to succeed. That is my advice anyway. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I have better things to do than to read and memorise Wtshymanski's block log. If he has been formally warned not to behave just like he's doing here, and he's been blocked for doing it previously, then I'd agree that it might be useful for an admin to follow that precedent and act accordingly. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You questioned whether this was an incident. With the demise of the RfC/U system, the only avenue now available to address user's behavioural issues is here at ANI (and the defunct RfC/U procedure says so). If nothing happens as a result of this, then I can only assume that the admins are granting open season on reverting other editors' posts. That may not be there intent, but it will certainly be the message. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


I would only ask that the admins look at the pattern of behavior here:

Extended content

Please note that some incidents that would no doubt have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so the block log does not tell the whole story.

Also note that when Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with "Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required". Please don't fall for it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy's post above underlines a very major problem. The administrators are (unwittingly) exacerbating the problem. A running feature in the long history of these behavioral disputes and complaints is that whenever the administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his attitude and behavior towards other Wikipedia users. I have lost count of the number of times, that some editor has criticised Wtshymanski on his talk page only for Wtshymanski to respond that his attitude has already been taken to ANI (or wherever) with no action and therefore it is acceptable [to the admins]. This was covered as long ago as the 2012 RfC/U. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Found it!

[In response to a complaint on his talk page] "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[32] - Wtshymanski

  • again, DieSwartzPunkt and Andy Dingley you have presented a bunch of evidence, which is great. But just coming here and making a complaint about a pattern of behavior generally leads no where here; the discussion will just go on and on and will eventually peter out as everyone gets exhausted. If you want something done you should make a concrete proposal for action Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It's DieSwartzPunkt who posted this, not me. I have no expectations of ANI ever acting usefully, so wouldn't have wasted the ink. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
well there is self-fulfilling prophecy if i ever saw one. OK I will do it, just so I don't have to watch this follow the sad pattern. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
As for what action is required? Wtshymanski's battleground attitude to other editors (both registered and anonymous) has been going on for several years. Guy Macon's very comprehensive listing above is testament to that. What is required is some action to force Wtshymanski to co-operate with other editors in the manner that Wikipedia intend. This means either a series of escallating blocks until he falls into line (though this has not worked so far). Alternatively, I would suggest the proposal that was made at the 2012 RfC/U, where a set of rigourously enforced sanctions be applied against Wtshymanski. There was a good list discussed here which would be a good starting point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
withdrawn as proposer Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

Proposal 1: 3 month block on Wtshymanski[edit]

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • Support - as proposer. W has a well documented, long term pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits. Demonstrated by block log and diffs above. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - as complainant. Previous block for this behaviour was one week and achieved nothing. A longer block is needed to try and get the message across. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Heres a better idea: block or interaction ban Dingley from bringing Wtshymanski to ANI again. Hes the one who has the problem. There are just three editors here who keep complaining about Wtshymanski: DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley. Theyre the ones who are causing this. Wtshymanski reverts bad edits - whats even wrong with that? To find things to complain about they dragged up a RFCU case from three years ago. No one else has trouble with Wtshymanski so leave the guy alone. (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re: "DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley": ...and Binksternet, and Bratland, and Deucharman, and Dicklyon, and EdJohnston, and Floydian, and Hasteur, and Jytdog, and N5iln, and NellieBly, and North8000, and Northamerica1000, and P-Tronics, and Rdengler, and RichardOSmith, and too many IP editors to count... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As Wtshymanski himself said, "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[33] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) The new proposal 2 is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Sadly. The evidence speaks for itself. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The complaint states that "W has a well documented, long term pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits." But the "evidence" posted by DSP shows only five such incidents "in the last three weeks". That's five edits out of over 700 made by Wtshymanski in that time. That's quite a standard W. is being held to. Regarding the list of previous incidents so painstakingly compiled by GuyMacon, many of those were closed without action. Since the current proposal is unsupported by sufficient evidence, this turns into "let's punish him more for the past 'pattern of behavior', even though we've provided no evidence that it's continuing." That's not how AN/I works. Jeh (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that you are prepared to cite 700 more or less mechanical edits adding a "no" to the "living=" parameter on biographical talk pages (that do not actually seem to change anything), as justification that Wtshymanski can revert IP address editors, contributions. Unless, the is, that you yourself do not approve of IP address editors editing. Guy answered the conclusions in his missive. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I won't comment on past history, but those 5 diffs at the beginning of this section are problematic as evidence. For example, the Feb 25 edit does not refer to the IP edit just before it, but to an earlier IP edit. The Mar 2 edit was clearly subtle vandalism from an IP whose only edits have been vandalism. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This point was addressed. The IP resolves to a whole college in India. These have been problematic for a long time. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per difs provided by Jeh which refute the accusation. Edison (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
And have been shown to be non- evidence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see the case as clearly proven. I see Jeh's posting of diffs of other peoples' edits as not proving anything about Wtshymanski's behaviour at all (How was that even supposed to work?).
However I don't want to see Wtshymanski long-term blocked (or Alan Liefting, where something similar and equally counter-productive happened). We have several clear policies, one of which is AGF, others are about crediting merges, discussion with others etc. and Wtshymanski has a long, long history of ignoring any of them he feels like. However what I want to see happen instead is for him to just start bloody well behaving himself, same as the rest of us have to. I don't want this to be at the cost of excluding him altogether (if at all possible). Maybe over-optimistic, but I hope something is possible.
As an imposed action today, I'd be much more keen on some narrowly worded restriction. "Not describing non-vandalism as vandalism" would be a start. Simply not reverting IPs at all, if that's the smallest that can stick. I can't support a three month block on an editor though, even Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Andy above. Just because Wtshymanski does not assume good faith doesn't mean that we should not give him a chance to correct himself. A temporary ban from reverting any IP edits may even be better than this. Epic Genius (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, I proposed this as an alternative to the 3 month block, but got shouted down. (See edit history for more). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Not reasonable. I advised you to withdraw a competing recommendation; you freely agreed without protest and suggested I delete the whole 2nd proposal; which I did. You just lost all credibility with me. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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.
@Jytdog: Since I neither reproposed the option 2 nor added a vote of support for it, what exactly is your problem? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2: revert restriction[edit]

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from reverting an edit without a content based edit summary. In addition, they are prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status in the summary.

  • Support addresses the specific concern without unduly interfering with editing of the encyclopedia. NE Ent 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. As I indicated with the examples I gave in User talk:Wtshymanski#rv V ?, it can be very difficult to figure out who was reverted and why from Wtshymanski's edit summaries. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment That's a completely valid concern, and goes with the "content-based edit summary" requirement, but I don't see how it's related to "can't refer to anon status". Will the WP default edit summary for reverting an IP edit be changed for Wtshymanski? Or will he be required to remove it? That would seem to me to make it even harder to figure out who was reverted. Jeh (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
      • He is (often but not always) removing the standard "Undid revision X by Y" (which does not refer to a users registration status, although you can infer it if it list an IP) now, and instead using edit summaries such as "rv anon v" that do refer to a users registration status. Leaving in the default edit summary would not violate this proposed restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. First, this proposal is not matched by a specific complaint that the proposal will address. (Which btw is why the following lengthy screed is here under my vote, instead of in the "discussion after complaint" section where it belongs.) DSP's original complaint was that W. reverts "any and all" IP edits; that is obviously false. Subsequent discussion was all over the place, but I don't see any specific complaints that are complementary to this proposal.
I suppose we can infer that the goalposts have now been moved the complaint has been changed to "W. frequently does not provide content-based edit summaries, and refers to IP edits disparagingly in edit summaries." But no evidence has been presented to support those complaints. A report of an "incident" here is supposed to be supported by diffs that are clear illustrations of the problem behavior. The only clear evidence here is DieSwartzPunkt (talk · contribs)'s five diffs, but those were originally compiled to support the "W. reverts any and all IP edits" complaint, not this. But those are all we have. So, taking them in order:
  • 17 Feb: Edit summary of W.'s revert was content-based ("out of place unclear and ungrammatical") and did not mention "lack of registration status" outside of WP's default summary for a revert of an IP edit. (Re the quality of the revert, though that does not seem to be anything being addressed by this proposal: I would note that "high starting resistance" does not sound like a positive attribute for any electric motor under any circumstances. Granted that W. could have reworded instead of reverting, W's revert nevertheless left the article better than the IP's edit did.) Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
  • 18 Feb: This is the "not visible so it's not light" revert. I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake, but the edit summary was content-based ("IR not visible") and only used the WP default wording for a revert of an IP edit. Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
  • 25 Feb: This is the "restored deleted PROD" case. In this case W. did write "rv anon". But the WP default summary text was also present, and it also shows that the edit being reverted was by an IP. Score: one for "edit summary not content-based" but I cannot see that this unduly refers to an "anon" editor, not when WP's default message does the same.
  • 25 Feb: This is the "unijunction transistor" case. W.'s edit summary is "rv anon v". Granted that this is not "content-based", but how much do we have to "content-base" a summary to defend a rv v?
DSP writes "The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism'".
But the "no evidence to the contrary" part of that assertion is absurd. Changing "unijunction" to "junction" in one place in an article titled "Unijunction transistor", and which has the word "unijunction" all over it, is pretty tough to assume to be an honest mistake. It is, rather, sadly typical of IP drive-by petty vandalism. If the IP thought the correct word was "junction" then ie should have made the change everywhere. Hence "rv v" is justified, and no further "content-based summary" is required. Score: No support for either supposed complaint. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I don't think you can say that I have no case at all. At worst, it's arguable.
n.b.: I have adopted the pronoun "ie" as a parallel to "he" or "she", to be used to refer to IPs of unknown gender.
  • 02 Mar: This is the "two phase electric power" edit. Edit summary: rv v with WP standard rv of IP text. The IP changed "90" to "180". On first glance this too could be seen to be an honest mistake, since the very common split phase power used in the US has a 180 degree phase difference. But this edit was in the "this article about" section of a SeeAlso, contrasting the 90-degree "two phase electric power" with split phase power. Moreover, there's a nice diagram in the lede, which clearly shows a 90 degree phase shift; and 90 degrees is also mentioned in the lede text. The IP didn't change any of that. Further, the IP's edit history shows a clear pattern of petty changes, nearly all of which were reverted. DSP says that the IP locates to a college in India, so there might be several different people using it and no conclusion can be drawn. I would agree if there was a pattern of mostly good edits. But not here. If the IP is being used by a group of people, then it's a group of people who collectively are vandals. I would also argue that expecting an editor to do a geolocate on an IP is an unreasonable length to expect anyone to go to. It looks more to me like a desperate quest for a reason to AGF, despite evidence to the contrary. No, "rv v" is appropriate and sufficient. Score: No support for supposed complaint.
So in my opinion, only one of those diffs clearly supports the complaint that I'm assuming this proposal addresses, with one or at most two more arguable.
But even if all of them supported the complaint, do not, by themselves, demonstrate a general pattern of problem edit summaries by W. They show five edits, for which DSP apparently had to scour W.'s edit history for the last three weeks, a period during which W. made over 700 edits. Proposers need to provide evidence showing that these are more than isolated cases.
Furthermore, I really wonder how many other editors' history would stand up to this level of nitpicking? I also wonder how many of W's past AN/I and other cases were made on equally flimsy grounds?
Lastly, regarding "prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status" part: When you revert an IP edit, WP automatically supplies a default summary of "Undid revision (number) by (IP address)". Are we going to require that W. change that? If not, how does the word "anon" call any undue or disparaging attention to the anonymous nature of the edit being reverted? If you do, do you really want to require W.'s reverts to not reflect the IP of the edit being reverted? That would only make it more difficult to figure out who was reverted and why, a result Guy Macon (talk · contribs) could be expected to object to, based on his statements above. Jeh (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to agree that the proposal above is too broad given the context. I am about to support the proposal, but with a scope restriction. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jeh - so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was correct?
Both of these edits (unijunction transistor and two phase power) were (to agree with Wtshymanski) ignorant and careless. They were obviously contradicted by the articles themselves, so any "careful" editor, not even a subject expert, should have had cause to question them. However a vast number of our IP editors on electrical topics are Indian college students with the confident ignorance of undergrads worldwide and an oddly (but obvious) Indian fixation on somewhat obsolescent electrical topics (I don't know what their biomedical students are learning, but their electrical engineers are taught about what the West tends to regard as museum pieces). I would lay money that these edits came from either an Indian technical college, or a bulk ISP such as BSNL. Look at synchronous motor and the perennial factor-of-two numerical errors introduced over "poles" and "pole pairs". We are waist-deep in this garbage and as someone who reverts far more poor edits to electrical topics than even Wtshymanski, I'm sick of it.
However ignorance and piss-poor teaching still isn't vandalism. Per AGF, none of us are allowed to treat it as such. As WP editors we are required to display infinite patience with clueless edits against basic common sense. Wtshymanski is no longer doing this. To be honest, I can't blame him for it. We should forgive it. However we shouldn't (as you're doing here) construct convoluted excuses for why it's "correct" to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was correct?" Yes. I said so. I don't think I was at all unclear. Personally I am often a little more hesitant to use the "v" in an edit summary for an IP's first edit and first mistake (e.g. the "unijunction" edit). But with the pattern seen in the history of the IP of the "two phase electric power" edit? That seems very clear to me.
Your thesis is that I'm supposed to AGF even when an edit is of a pattern very commonly used by petty vandals, even when it's from an IP with multiple previous similar edits. I think that, and your requirement of "infinite patience", is absurd. That is an absolute, a universal, and I see no support for such in WP:AGF. Please note that WP:AGF begins with a disclaimer: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." A requirement of "infinite patience" is not at all "common sense", particularly not when the encyclopedia is being damaged repeatedly from the same IP.
I don't think I used "convoluted excuses" either. I think that was done by the apologist who noted that the IP locates to a school and therefore the IP's history of other erroneous edits is irrelevant. How is that idea consistent with WP's use of schoolblocks? Hey, in our effort to bend over backwards while touching our toes to AGF, why don't we just always assume that even if an IP goes to a private home, different family members might be using it, therefore an IP's history is always irrelevant? r-i-g-h-t.
Assuming I agree with your position here (I don't, particularly the "infinite patience" part): How do you reconcile "I can't blame him for it - we should forgive it" with your support for DSP's "reworded" proposal below?
Even if we accept that both of those edits were not v., there still is no evidence for a pattern of problematic edits. DSP says he went back three weeks in W's history and found two AGF failures. Oh my ghod, the sky will fall. Again, I ask: How many other editors' histories would stand up against this level of nitpicking? I think DSP is just a little too eager to bring ANI cases against W. Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
"with the pattern seen in the history of the IP"
What "pattern"? They've made a dozen edits in total. This year they've made the two phase edit and a self-reverted. Neither of these are vandalism and there is no pattern of vandalism from them. Even Checkuser regards IP data as stale after three months, but you're seeing a pattern of confirmed vandalism from it.
Do you believe in some form of demonic possession? Do you think this router has become inherently evil, and so any editor connecting via it is now forced to turn into some sort of vandal?!
Your failure to accept AGF as applying to IPs is as bad as Wtshymanski's. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah? Feel free to bring an ANI case if you think you can make it stick. Jeh (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
More constructively: If incorrect use of the "vandalism" charge by W. is what you're really concerned about, why not make a Proposal 3: "Wtshymanski is forbidden from using 'v.', 'vand.', 'vandalism', or other similar accusations of vandalism in edit summaries"? Now, as I said, even if I accept those two IP edits as not-vandalism, there is still a failure to make a case that these are anything but isolated incidents. And I think that, although a few incidents of of AGFFailure could be worthy of a warning from an admin, any long-term restriction on editing behavior needs far more proof. But at least this is a nice clean proposal with clear boundaries for what is and isn't being proposed. If you do this, be sure to make the new proposal separate from the others, unlike what DSP did. Jeh (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with reword : The scope is too broad as it apparently attempting to address issues not raised here as Jeh observes. My support would be for a sanction worded, "A prohibition on reverting any edit from an IP address editor. This includes any that are vandalism". The latter because Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism. Any genuine vandalism will get swept up by others in the usual way. To be enforced by escallating blocks if breached. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment : One, I call a procedure violation. This is not a "support with reword"; in particular, this is not a "reword". It is a different proposal completely. You need to make a new proposal for this. (Should the closing admin assume that the previous "support"s apply to your new proposal? Why? They're for a different proposal, one that still allows W. to revert IP edits, among other differences.)
Two, I guess now the "problem" has morphed into "Wtshymanski's reverts of IPs' edits are bad, and Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism". Let's see: Out of the five diffs you posted, only two showed W. accusing of "vandalism". Re the article content, those were completely justified reverts. And in each case there is completely sufficient reason to not AGF.
That leaves two actual problem reverts by W.: One was a revert against policy (restore PROD after IP deleted it). In talk page discussion W. made clear that he was surprised that IPs were allowed to block PRODs. The first time I ran into that, I was surprised too. The other was the "IR not visible so it isn't 'light'" revert, which is a factual error on W's part, not related to reverting of an IP nor to any accusations of vandalism.
But even if we accept those, that is still only two problem edits in three weeks. You haven't shown that such problems only occur when W. reverts IPs, you haven't shown any unjustifiable charges of vandalism, and you haven't shown that any problems that are demonstrated by these edits are anything but isolated incidents.
And your attempt to cast it as a "reword", attempting to roll "support"s for the original proposal 2 into "support"s for this, is particularly egregious. Jeh (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - but don't these "restrictions" apply to every editor anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Question What are you supporting? The original Proposal 2, or DSP's so-called "reword"? Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • In concept. Decent edit summaries are a "best practice," not something that's generally enforced; this would make them enforceable. That's why it's not an unreasonable measure. NE Ent 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the reworded (and it is re-worded) restriction. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but take to ArbCom - User:Wtshymanski is seem to not understand WP:IPHUMAN, which concerns a lot of new users who decide to make some edits logged out before making an account. However, I don't think ANI is the place for this, consider taking this to WP:ARBCOM. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the reworded restriction. This kind of wholesale reversion is the worst kind of WP:BITEy behavior. @NE Ent and Guy Macon: could you two please weigh in and indicate if you support the reworded restriction as well, or exclusively what was originally proposed? HiDrNick! 20:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Question What "wholesale reversion"? Five reported reverts in three weeks? Only two of them factually invalid? Jeh (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the original (not reworded) proposal. I wanted to stay completely uninvolved, but the user convinced me at their talk page that the topic ban is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I nee no proposal for a "topic ban". What "topics" is W. to be banned from editing? Jeh (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      You are right, I did not word it in a good way. I support the proposal to restrict W from reverting edits without a content-based summary. This is indeed not a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I fully agree with Jeh's analysis of the diffs submitted as evidence, I was about to write something very similar myself. WTS is a problematic editor and has demonstrated a prejudice against IPs in the past, but there is no justification on the evidence given here for any kind of adminstrative action against WTS. The last two diffs in particular, I would likely have reverted them myself without comment. They are obviously wrong and very possibly deliberately disruptive (and by the way, the last one is precisely WTS's area of expertise and is thus certainly not blind reversion). I wouldn't be opposed to a ban on WTS making any edit with any kind of sarcasm in the edit summary (where it cannot easily be replied to), but that would be a different thread altogether to the one here. SpinningSpark 15:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The community is entitled to be fed up of this behaviour. This member is fed up. How much longer does the community have to wait for something to be done? Op47 (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I agree that edit summaries should indicate a reason for any edit, this proposal is a solution without a sufficient problem. Suggest the editor be told that "best practice" includes a reasonable statement of the reason for a revert other than simply being an edit from an IP (which is how I read the qualified support !votes above as well) . Collect (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of action it continues...[edit]

IP edit: [34]

Wtshymanski revert: [35]

This was a challenge of provided information by asking for a supporting reference. The IP editor did not use the correct {{citation needed}} template - most likely due to inexperience as this is the IP editor's first edit. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the IP edit as usual. He could easily have been helpful and inserted the correct template, but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's see. A proposal with only one oppose !vote, and that one from someone who appears to be OK with siding with Wtshymanski in a content dispute where there are zero citations supporting Wtshymanski and where the chairman of that IEEE 1159.1 Power Quality Measurements wrote a paper specifically to correct Wtshymanski‎'s claim.[36] This should be interesting. I will make some popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
What? I didn't side with anybody in that content dispute. I watched it, but I didn't express an opinion either way. Recently, I just asked a question, a considerable amount of time after the dispute at the article page (unless it's still going on; I haven't looked for a while). But either way, the question was just for my information, not meant to "side" with anyone—if I'd wanted to do that I'd have done it at the article talk page. And anyway, what does that have to do with anything here? Does the fact that I was unclear on how PF is calculated and what negative values would mean make my arguments here less valid? Come on, Guy, you're better than that. Jeh (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. You spent the entire thread attempting to rubbish everyone else's observations on the matter and attempting to justify what Wtshymanski was doing. You even tried to claim that Wtshymanski's actions in some cases were due to his ignorance of the subject in question. Like when you tried to claim that Wtshymanski might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light. Wtshymanski is sufficiently familiar with the technology to know that 'LED' stands for "Light Emitting Diode" and that 'infra-red light is as much light as any other variety. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You know, DSP, posting carelessly is completely within your rights. But when you do so, you should keep in mind that everything I posted is right here for everyone to see. When it is so ridiculously easy to show that you're off base, I really have to wonder what your motivation is.
There is no support here for a blanket charge of my attempting to "justify what W. was doing". (You have a real problem with speaking in generalities; do you realize that? Do you understand what the problem is with making such claims?) I pointed out that in a couple of the whopping total of five diffs you'd provided, W's. reverts were justified. I pointed out that the five diffs you posted did not support your accusations, that the behavior they did show would not be countered by the various proposals, and that the proposals did not match up with the accusations. Nor did I try "to claim that W. might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light." I wrote "I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake". I later wrote, referring to the same edit, "which is a factual error on W's part". Get your facts right.
I even suggested a proposal that actually would fit the complaint - W. would be forbidden from referring to "vandalism" in edit summaries. Did you miss that?
You may be thinking of my comment re. the revert of the IP's deletion of a PROD. I was thinking of this comment by W.: [37] Now, maybe I am naive for interpreting that as honest unawareness of the rules—I don't think so, since W. rarely lifts a finger to answer critics; I can't imagine him lying to do so, that would be too much trouble—but it wasn't something I just dreamed up. Jeh (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Jeh, with all due respect, I believe that the record shows that I have been bending over backwards to give Wtshymanski the benefit of the doubt, convince him to engage in a serious discussion about his behavior, and to recommend the minimum level of sanctions that I think will reduce the ongoing disruption to the engineering articles. My perception of your approach is that your are a staunch defender of Wtshymanski, that whenever anyone posts a criticism that is flawed in any way you dissect it analyze it in great detail (which is good), but when a criticism hits home (my response Wtshymanski's continued snarky comments about how right he is about negative power factor despite the reams of citations showing him that he is wrong, for example), you go silent and move on to your next talking point. In my opinion, you are an advocate, not someone who tries to support Wtshymanski when he is right (as he often is) and criticize him when he is wrong. Nothing wrong with that, of course. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Guy, I am glad you posted that. I was working on a lengthy reply to the thread over at W.'s talk page when he blanked it (as he is wont to do). Now I have another place, a better place, to put it. But I have real work to do today, so I'll get back to this later. For a short answer, though: I see many things wrong with W.'s behavior; it is just that there are so many people eager to bring AN/I cases against him that it seems superfluous for me to mention them. Meanwhile, it is puzzling to me that you read me as an "advocate" when I don't think I've done much if anything beyond calling for hewing to the standard you called for. Jeh (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You make good point, and looking back at my comment I see that I was too harsh and aggressive. We are clearly both here to improve the encyclopedia, and I apologize for my tone. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


@Guy Macon:: Ok, here's the long version. First: I pretty much agree with what you wrote here. Same with Dennis Bratland's "outside view" in this old RFC case.

Personally, I do think he has mellowed some in the last year or so. Still, whenever an edit of mine conflicts with one of W's I groan a little, because I'm expecting a fight. The times I haven't gotten one, I've been pleasantly surprised—and that isn't how it's supposed to be here; as was pointed out to me rather firmly in my first months, "AGF! This isn't USENET!" So even I wish he could be persuaded to take the attitude down a few notches, not to mention interact more on his talk page. It would be better for the encyclopedia, and it would be better for him: some positions he takes that I agree with (like this) would have a better chance of being heard if there wasn't such a crusty curmudgeon behind them.

But I don't like dogpiles, and I don't like witch-hunts. More specifically: I don't like zealous efforts to dig through piles of old evidence to find actionable edits, followed by trying one proposal after another to see if something sticks... even though the evidence doesn't support the complaints and the proposals don't address the real problems.

Look at DSP's flip-flopping: from his first paragraphs, which included obviously-wrong universals like "W. reverts any and all edits by IPs"; then switching from one proposal to another when the first collects objections... and branding his own as a "reword" when its intended results had very little in common with what it was supposedly a reword of. ~"We found five problem edits (out of 700) in the last three weeks! Surely there's enough here to get him blocked, or banned from doing SOMEthing!" It really makes DSP look desperate, and since DSP, AD, and GM almost never disagree with each other where W. is concerned, the appearance of desperation is shared around.

And look at some of the reactions to my objections. AD dismisses me with an ad hom: ~"Well, you're W.'s friend, so of course you rush in to defend him." (Dare I suggest AGF, in a complaint thread that's about AGF?) DSP accuses me of saying the exact opposite of what I actually said re the "IR not visible" edit. (I notice that he's "gone silent" on that point.) Similarly, over at W's talk page, an admin claims I said that all of W's reverts were justified! Just how un-carefully do you have to read to conclude such things? Perhaps something that could be called "Wtshymanski derangement syndrome" is involved. I'm partly serious there. I suggest that Wtshymanski's generally... let's call it brusque attitude leads those who are most offended by him to scrutinize his edits far more closely, and find fault far more often, than they would with most other editors.

I see it again in DSP's jumping on W's rv of an IP's edit to the BASIC article. Yes, at first glance it looks like the IP was correct and that W was wrong to revert. Another bogus revert of an IP by Wtshymanski! Throw another log on the pyre! Oh wait. At second glance it looks very much otherwise; see talk:BASIC for further discussion. Editors there have carefully examined the refs and decided for now at least that W's revert was correct. There is still more evidence to be looked at, but the point here is that it looks to me as if DSP jumped too easily to the conclusion that W.'s revert was wrong, motivated as he was to add more weight to this complaint.

In short, I raised objections to this complaint/series of complaints/series of proposals against W. not because I think W. is beyond reproach, nor because I'm his "friend", but because I don't think the complaints or proposals are justified by the evidence, and I don't think the proposals address the real issues (those being a pattern of general, but generally mild, incivility, and near-complete refusal to engage in discussion). And I don't think anybody should be the target of the sorts of tag-teaming, lets-get-him-on-something campaign I see here.

Yes, of course "Everybody knows" W. is hasty to revert IPs. That's what the complaint was here, and he's been taken to ANI a lot before (though not for a pattern of being hasty to revert IPs), so of course it must be true. But a few point examples don't prove it. Nevertheless an admin showed up and seemed only too eager to take up the banner. That admin even claimed that it was legitimate to conclude that any given revert of W's was likely erroneous just because W. has been taken to ANI, etc., more often than most. ("This guy's had three tickets this year; let's write him for speeding again even though we haven't so much as clocked him!") This is the same revert I mentioned DSP jumping on above, and the sources show that W.'s revert was correct. The admin mentioned "statistics," but cited no numbers, only personal impressions. As Guy Macon said here, a lot of things that "everybody knows" turn out to be not true. Bottom line: If we're supposed to take it as proven that Wtshymanski is overly revertful of IP edits, then let's see some numbers that prove that charge. I don't agree that general impressions shared by the hive mind are sufficient, particularly for someone who edits as much as Wtshymanski does. And especially when someone is calling for a three-week block.

The current complaint started out with "not even wrong" universal claims ("W. reverts any and all edits by IPs") and did not improve after that. What we're left with is "W. has misbehaved a lot in the past, and here are a tiny handful of problem edits; let's make up some proposals that address some very specific issues with these edits." That's not the way to bring an AN/I case, and the proposals made here are not going to do anything for the real problems.

That is all. I've spent way too much time on this. Last words are everyone else's. I'm banning myself from the next three W.-related ANI threads, at least. Jeh (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Jeh. In particular, the "W. reverts any and all edits by IPs" claim was stupid, and we all -- myself included -- need to work harder on only supporting claims where there is solid evidence, and objecting whenever claims are overreaching. Jeh, I still feel bad about going off half cocked in my first reply to you. That was wrong, and again I apologize.
This is my final comment here, so in closing I am going to repost something I wrote to Wtshymanski[38] in response to his writing "Suddenly I'm the biggest threat to Wikipedia since Essjay", and which he deleted without response.
"No, you are not the biggest threat to Wikipedia since Essjay. What you are is someone who refuses to simply engage in a dialog about your behavior, forcing multiple frustrated editors to take to to ANI in the hope that an admin will intervene. Your every interaction drips with sarcasm and disdain for anyone who dares to disagree with you, and you never admit defeat, even in cases such as negative power factor where you have never, ever been able to produce a single cite supporting your position after it became clear (the author himself told you so) that the IEEE standard had an error in it. You piss people off, and not just a few of them. Some withdraw in frustration, some misbehave in retaliation, and a few keep trying to reduce the disruption to the encyclopedia. Your actual level of disruption is actually rather mild compared to most cases, but it drives people crazy when they cannot get you to simply talk over your differences like adults. But of course you know all of this." --Posted by Guy Macon (talk) to Wtshymanski's talk page on 20:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I can only hope that Wtshymanski decides to be more cooperative and collegial with other editors, realizing that at least some of us have the same goals of improving the Encyclopedia that he has. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to break my self-imposed exile here because I'm not replying to an argument (I honestly think I've said all I will ever have to say in this thread). Rather I'm just saying "thank you". Guy, you had apologized previously and I was completely satisfied with that. My missive above was not intended to elicit more of the same, simply to explain further why I've been following the path I've been following. In any case, thank you again for stopping to "listen" to my POV. Jeh (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Still no action and the problem continues[edit]

13th Mar

1st IP edit: [39]: 2nd IP edit: [40]

Wtshymanski revert: [41]

This was a case of two for the price of one. Wtshymanski got to revert two good faith edits from two different IP editors at the same time. The first IP added a co-creator of BASIC to the article. A definitely good faith addition because it was entirely correct. The second IP linked the added name to the Wikipedia article (so also good faith). Wtshymanski, in less than an hour, reverted both edits. He was more interested in reverting the IP edits than whether what they had added was correct. Had Wtshymanski, followed the added link to the Wikipedia article, he whould have discovered than not only that Mary Kenneth Keller indeed had co-created BASIC but that it was reliably and verifiably referenced. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I put a fairly strong warning and I feel that the next revert should result in a block. Since I am not involved (in fact, did not hear about this user until today), I will have no hesitation to block them myself, but of course any uninvolved administrator can do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Now someone objected me at the talk page, got me involved in the discussion, and I can not be considered as uninvolved any more.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Related: Info on Sister Mary Kenneth Keller (PDF). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Some action at last. I have taken the liberty of copying the reference from the Mary Kenneth Keller article to the BASIC article so it is unreferenced no longer. It should not have been necessary for someone else to do this, as Wtshymanski could easily have been helpful to the newbie IP editors and done the same. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have just found yet another reversion of a good faith edit that was perfectly valid. But since the edit was made before the warning was posted to Wtshymanski's talk page, I shall demonstrate some good faith and let it go. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
We have admin eyes on the issue, so I think it is time for me to stop commenting and let this either be closed or time out and be archived. I still think that some admin should look at the totality of Wtshymanski's behavior (ANI was touted as the replacement for RFC/U, after all) instead of playing Whac-A-Mole as a slow but steady stream of ANI complaints are filed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
"Working on" some project under the direction of the two acknowledged inventors did not make Sister Keller the "co-inventor." Kemeny and Kurtz are stated to be the inventors /developers of Basic in countless reliable sources, which say they supervised a team of students who did the implementation. Apparently Keller was one of those students, probably a graduate student. The refs provided only show her to have been one of the worker-bees. It is O.R to list her as a third, co-equal developer of Basic. There is a discussion on the talk page of the article on the Basic language as to Keller's role. Edison (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This does not belong here. This is a discussion of the editing habits of one editor. Regardless of whether Mary Kenneth Keller co-invented BASIC or not, this is a discussion on whether Wtshymanski was correct or not to revert the edits adding her to the inventors of the article. He may (or may not) be factually correct, but the IP address that added the information can definitely be assumed to have acted in good faith because the Mary Kenneth Keller article contains the very claim supported by a reference where it has stood unchallenged since the article was created back in June 2012. I am not in a position to say if Wtshymanski has any knowledge of the inventors of BASIC, but he certainly provided no evidence to support his reversion of the edits. His edit comment acompanying the revert of, "no, not really", is, at best, nothing more than a statement of personal knowledge or possibly original research.
Looking at this as an uninvolved user, who is right and who is wrong about Mary Keller is entirely beside the point. Two IP address based editors made what must be regarded as good faith edits from the points made above. Their edits were reverted based on nothing more than personal knowledge or original research. To my outside view, that means that this example fits with the general thrust of this ANI complaint. If the good faith edit was wrong, then it requires correction, but that requires supporting references and evidence. A reversion without such evidence, given the referencing at the linked article, is wrong - and that is exactly what happened. I grant that several editors are now questioning the reliability of the referencing, but that discussion was not available to the two IP address editors at the time of their good faith edits so that is entirely moot. –LiveRail Talk > 11:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I tried to make exactly the same point at the user's talk page, without much success: My opponents think that per WP:V these edits MUST be reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
So WTS was wrong to revert unsourced information on the basis that the same claim is made in another Wikipedia article? Come on, we repeatedly tell newbies they can't use Wikipedia articles as references. And whatever happened to WP:V and the principle that it is the responsibility of the challenged editor to provide a source? I cannot agree that "who is right and who is wrong about Mary Keller is entirely beside the point". The entire complaint here about WTS is that he is alleged to revert IPs without regard to the quality of their edits. An example where he is shown to be right, or at least knowledgable editors in the subject believe him to be right, absolutley does not count as evidence towards that behaviour. Nor should it be taken as a breach of any previous warning. SpinningSpark 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. This is not about one reversion of an IP edit. This is about a policy that Wtshymanski has toward all IP address editors and their edits. Wtshymanski has freely admitted in the course of this ANI that he does routinely revert all edits from IP editors with the exception of one per year. It would seem that the one per year is solely so that any claim that he revets all IP edits can be refuted - which in fact he has tried on. However, it seems to not be impressing many people except the gullible. The admin who posted the statement to Wtshymanski's talk page telling him that he will be blocked if he does it again has apparently researched the history and found that it is true. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not missing the point at all and I take exception to the implication that I am gullible. I realise this thread is not just about one IP edit, but you have utterly failed to provide the evidence by way of multiple credible diffs that there is a current and ongoing problem. The claim that Shymanski has admitted to reverting all IP edits is preposterous. You are referring to this which is proof by counterexample with a heavy dollop of typical WTS sarcasm. The one per year are counterexamples to the claim that all IP edits are reverted, not an admission of it. SpinningSpark 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This has already been researched. You certainly are gullible if you believe that Wtshymanski's 'one-per-year' list are 'counter-examples'. Not one (none, zip, zilch) of the examples given in that post are counter-examples of routine reversion of IP edits in any shape or form - it's a standard Wtshymanski smoke-screen. All of the edits provided are just routine addition of information; copy-editing the article to make it clearer or correction of grammar and usage - all of which are legitimate edits (even if originally introduced by an IP editor) and are not the subject of this ANI. As said: not one is an example of a failure to revert a good faith edit (or any immediately preceeding edit) by an IP editor.
A counter-example (for the purposes of this ANI) has to be a good faith edit made by an IP editor to an article that Wtshymanski regularly watches (basically all the engineering articles), that was not reverted. You can go through Wtshymanski's edit history but you won't find one - it's already been done.
However, this is all academic as sentence has been pronounced. This ANI is ready for archiving. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It's funny that you can't actually provide diffs of this alleged routine reversion. And I don't see any "sentence" having been pronounced. SpinningSpark 18:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You're not following this are you? I provided all the diffs since 17th Feb - seven of them (this ignores one that occured before admin intervention because I discovered it afterwards). The examples go back years, but as I explained in the original complaint, I would still be typing them in if I documented all that occured here. A snapshot looking back one month was adequate to the task. All the diffs are fully documented here and you can search for them yourself. There is no example of any edit from an IP editor (good faith or otherwise) being allowed to remain in any article routinely watched by Wtshymanski. An admin took action here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
You're the one who is not following, or else has a bad case of IDHT. I said above that I do not accept that your seven diffs adequately demonstrate the alleged behaviour and I fully support Jeh's analysis of them. Most of them are perfectly reasonable reverts that any of us could have done. As I also said, Shymanski is a problematic editor, but let's not take action in the spirit of a witch hunt on the basis of flimsy evidence. SpinningSpark 18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with you. But never mind ... DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It still continues...[edit]

Despite Ymblanter's warning on his talk page.

19th Mar

IP edit: [42]

Wtshymanski revert: [43]

This is an identical revert to the 8th Mar one above but against a different IP editor. This was a challenge of information by asking for a supporting reference. It is fairly clear that it was the magnitude of the unreferenced numbers that was being challenged. The IP editor did not use the correct [citation needed] template - most likely due to inexperience as this is the IP editor's first edit. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the IP edit as usual . He could easily have been helpful and inserted the correct template (or better still a reference - which I was easily able to do), but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors and this is a classic case where this needs to be done.

19th Mar

IP edit: [44]

IP edit self revert: [45]

Wtshymanski revert: [46]

The first IP edit is where he made an uncited change to the century in which arc welding was developed and added some nonsense text. The second IP edit is where he self reverted his change back to what the article read before he edited (I have no problem where someone self reverts things that are not right - good faith demands that I have to assume it was a mistake). However Wtshymanski, as usual, sees the IP editor's second edit and mechanically reverts it - without even bothering to check that a reversion is even warranted. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Ouch, yeah that revert they did clearly shows no thought or investigation into what the user is actually reverting. (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This is getting absolutely ridiculous. That last revert has to be considered as proof positive that the basis of this ANI complaint is completely sound. In view of the fact that Wtshymanski has made two more unwarranted reverts of IP edits despite being specifically warned not to do so must be regarded as blatant defiance. Because Wtshymanski is making it abundantly clear that he is not even prepared to heed a specific warning given to him by an administrator, I would call upon the warning administrator (or any administrator) to implement the block that was threatened. Because this is a specific vendetta directed at potential future editors of Wikipedia, that block cannot be anything other than an indefinite block as it is clear that Wtshymanski is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate with others on building an encyclopedia. –LiveRail Talk > 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
They managed to involve me to the discussion, so that I can not be considered uninvolved anymore, and will not block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Are we really to believe that an IP that writes "fack information about this" has made a good faith mistake. Shymanski's error was not that the IP did not deserve reverting, but rather, that he did not revert far enough. That is an argument for giving Shymanski rollback so he can more easily avoid that mistake in the future rather than blocking him for what was actually a good faith mistake on his part. SpinningSpark 18:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, you could just AGF, and assume the IP meant to type "lack information about this" at the end of an unsourced paragraph, unaware of {{cn}}. That would make a certain amount of sense for an inexperienced "newbie" edit, unfamiliar with how to add or challenge material. Just saying. Worth at least trying to ascertain the intent, maybe, or ask for a source, rather than an incorrect partial revert with the summary "not really", showing no attempt to examine the overall change before undoing it. Especially in the current circumstances. Begoontalk 09:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Once again, you have completely missed the point. I suggest you re-read the summary of what Wtshymanski did. It is not a question that he did not revert back far enough. The IP editor had already reverted his own incorrect edit and removed the nonsense phrase that he had added. The article was thus in exactly the same state as it was before he made any edits. There was nothing to roll back. Wtshymanski simply reverted the last edit (the revert) without actually checking to see what it did and as a result, effectively vandalised the article albeit probably unwittingly - but that is not the point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
───────────────────────── I believe this is the ANI I'm being asked to respond to. I see I have accidentally reverted good edits as well as vandalism. Often if I only see the vandalism edit in the diff I go back to the previous version without checking if it, too is valid. I often check the edit history before reverting to make sure I'm going back to a good version; I have neglected that in some cases where the vandalism was small. I will check the edit history more carefully before reverting. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I move that this be closed as "no action required". I consider Wtshymanski to be completely honest and trustworthy (our disagreements lie elsewhere) and if he says he will be more careful that should be the end of it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
As I stated aove, I can accept someone making a (or several similar) mistake(s). The real art in making a mistake is to learn from them and not to repeat them. I agree this can be closed on the basis of Wtshymanski's statement above. I have little doubt that if he does err again, we will get to know about it. As a user who is uninvolved in the complaint made here, I shall be bold and close this case. –LiveRail Talk > 13:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reopened - Not resolved[edit]

I have taken the liberty of re-opening this ANI because the matter does not seem to have been resolved. An anonymous editor has made this edit to MOS Technology 6502. Another unrelated user has removed an unsourced and frankly unencyclopeadic sentence.

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs) has reverted the good faith addition made by the anonymous editor. I do not feel that this is the place to debate whether the intended reversion was right ot wrong (that belongs elsewhere). But what does belong here is that Wtshymanski in reverting the anonymous edit has reintroduced the unsourced and unencyclopeadic content. Wtshymanski, has therefore not checked the edit history or what he was reverting as he promissed to do in his statement above. It is my belief that he was just routinely and mechanically reverting the anonymous edit because it was an anonymous edit as he has done so frequently in the past. (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Can and ANI be re-opened once closed? As the closer: If it can then I concur and support the re-opening on the grounds given. The IP edit has to be regarded as good faith edit (adding more trivia to a pre-existing trivia section). I am not convinced that articles benifit from lists of trivia, but as noted that is whole different debate. This was a good faith edit whose reversion is questionable. The matter at point here is that the reversion carelessly re-introduced material that had already been deleted by another user. That should not have happened if Wtshymanski had learnt from this experience. –LiveRail Talk > 15:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This has gotten a lot of attention already, no need to re-open. Chillum 15:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This has got a lot of attention and for very good reasons. There is a serious problem here and it it would seem to require some action. As things stand, it would appear that Wtshymanski is taking absolutely no notice whatsoever of any of the comments that have been made here, the warning placed on his talk page or his own proposal in the previous section. If the examples provided here really are examples of routine reversion of IP editor's edits as has been suggested more than once, then that is totally unacceptable. This ANI now documents ten examples of reverts to IP edits (over a period of just five weeks). While some are more obvious than others, I think that if all ten are viewed together, there is a clear case. –LiveRail Talk > 16:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just driving by here, I agree that this is far from resolved. Wtshymanski's indiscriminate reverting of anonymous contributions is extremely WP:BITEy and WP:OWNy, and needs to stop immediately. There was a proposal above that I read as prohibiting the user from reverting any anonymous contributions, and I think that is the absolute minimum required. They either cannot tell the difference between good-faith contributions and intentional vandalism, or they don't care. The evidence presented above suggests the latter, but regardless of which it actually is, W's indiscriminate reverting is causing a whole lot more disruption than if they just left IP edits for someone else to judge. They should also read WP:IPs are human too, which in the lede has this to say about indiscriminately reverting IPs: "This practice is against the philosophy of Wikipedia and founding principles of all Wikimedia projects." Continued violation should result in blocks. Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
While I think that ANI discussions are rarely productive once they get this old I am happy to let the discussion continue. Chillum 15:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably right, but usually because the issue either resolves itself or makes its way to Arbcom or something. Neither is the case here, at least not yet. I was working on making a new thread when this was reopened. Ivanvector (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Any chance of a clue as to what was going to be in it? –LiveRail Talk > 16:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Just what I posted above, with reference to this thread and the fact that I had started a new one because an administrator enforced closing the unresolved one. Procedural nonsense, basically. Ivanvector (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the promotion, but I am not an administrator. I am a relatively uninvolved ordinary editor who has had minimal interaction with Wtshymanski, and whose only real knowledge of this matter is what is here and in the editing history. It is not uncommon for ANI complaints to be closed with a statement of intent to do things differently from the complainee. Wtshymanski made such a statement above and I did what we all aspire to do and assumed it was made in good faith. It would seem that, on this ocassion, I was wrong. –LiveRail Talk > 16:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify for the sake of completeness, by "an administrator enforced..." I was referring to Chillum reinstating your close after 86.145.x.x reopened. I hadn't actually looked at your userrights, and also am not an administrator myself. Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The proposal above (proposal 2) was not a restriction on reverting IP edits (I had to read it again because I thought you were right). It was a more wide ranging restriction on reversions that some other users had issues with. But: I like your thinking and accordingly, I shall propose ... –LiveRail Talk > 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Revert restriction[edit]

That Wtshymanski be banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address, broadly construed. This to include not only a direct reversion of such an edit (using the (undo) feature) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of any article.

  • Support: This has to be any edit, because although I am aware that Wtshymanski does sweep up vandalism and 'undesireable' edits but, as Ivanvector states above, they would soon be swept up by others. A ban on reverting vandalism is warranted because the examples in the ANI reveal a tendency to revert good faith edits as vandalism when they are not. –LiveRail Talk > 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (as co-proposer?) per my comments above. Wtshymanski's contributions are highly appreciated, however apparent repeated failures to distinguish others' highly appreciated contributions from clear vandalism have led to behaviour against the spirit of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and their pledge to discontinue such behaviour was moot given this lack of awareness. Ivanvector (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those with accounts. Wtshymanski needs to be put under 0RR with regard to anonymous edits. This kind of WP:BITEy behaviour should not be tolerated. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Enough's enough. Wtshymanski clearly has no respect for IP editors, no competence to check that he's reverting correctly and no intention of even complying with the feeble restrictions previously agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I think more people are starting to see what I am on about here. This is basically the reword I proposed of Option 2 above, so I have to support it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Good proposal and well worth doing, but I don't think it will solve the underlying problem, which is why I posted proposal 5 below while still supporting this proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Even better idea than option 2 above. Op47 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as my general position on Draconian solutions. I suggest the position that he be asked to give better summaries is reasonable, but bans in such a case do not "solve" much at all. The seeing multiple IP edits problem and "reverting the wrong one" is not rare on Wikipedia, alas, but singling out one editor is not the solution - one should propose on an appropriate policy page language on the order of "reverting any edit made by an IP primarily on the basis that the edit was made by an IP, is improper" or the like. Where it is the policy or guideline one has a problem with, that is what should be emended. Collect (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support If you want Wtshymanski to change for the better, this is what needs to be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing example from above[edit]

For the sake of completeness of the history of this routine reversion of IP edits, there is one example of a revert to an IP edit that I left out because it was made before Ymblanter posted his warning to Wtshymanski's talk page. I feel it would be apposite to now include it - as I say for completeness.

13th Mar

IP edit: [47]

Wtshymanski revert: [48]

This was a good faith edit adding the 'Ω' symbol to the text of the article. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the edit with a the edit summary, "already in the lead (sic)". Whilst it is true that it was in the lede, the lede is meant to be a summary of the main part of the article (per WP:LEAD). Thus it was quite proper for the IP editor to add it. I note that someone else objected and restored it after Wtshymanski reverted my restoration. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

More reversion of good faith[edit]

23rd Mar

IP edit: [49]

Wtshymanski revert: [50]

Once again a good faith edit from an IP editor where he has added a 'see also' that links to an article that is a valid application of the subject of the article. Wtshymanski has just routinely reverted the edit claiming 'low relevance'. It is not of low relevance, SCSI was a mainstream application of the D-subminiature connector. Indeed: I have several SCSI drives that use the connectors. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Reference showing relevance: [51] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 5: A well-crafted set of restrictions[edit]

Consider this a mini-test of the theory that ANI can handle the function formerly handled by RFC/U.

Proposal 4, while good, only covers one aspect of Wtshymanski's behavior, leaving ANI in the position of playing Whac-A-Mole forever with Wtshymanski and with a series of new editors who are goaded into serious misbehavior after interacting with Wtshymanski. I would ask that a close look be given to the patterns of behavior shown here:

I propose that Wtshymanski be given a carefully crafted set of community restrictions that will allow him to do good work without doing those things that the community finds disruptive.

I further propose that the community restrictions be enforced in the following manner, and not according to our traditional "do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, drop a piano on him" custom.

1st failure to follow a community restriction: warning. 2nd: warning. 3rd: 24 hour block. 4th: 2-day block. 5th: 4-day block, then 8 and so on, escalating to at least 64 days before considering an indefinite block.

This does not imply immunity from other blocks -- this only applies to this specific set of community restrictions. Also, it must be the same specific restriction; no combining. In other words, he can fail to follow each individual restriction twice without any blocks.

Specific restrictions

This is my idea of what specific restrictions will work, but I am completely open to a revised or even completely different list. The core of my proposal is that there be a well-crafted set of restrictions enforced with the escalating warnings/sanctions detailed above, not the specific set of restrictions chosen.

  • No sarcasm or personal comments in edit summaries. All edit summaries must be a neutrally-worded and accurate description of the edit. No misleading edit summaries.
  • No activities that delete articles without discussion. In other words, WP:AFD is allowed, WP:PROD or WP:MERGE without prior discussion on the article talk page is not.
  • Three or perhaps five minutes between edits in article space except for minor typo corrections. This will give him time to be more careful and to make better use of the preview feature.
  • Normal 3RR restriction reduced to 2RR.

I would also encourage more administrators to warn Wtshymanski when he violates WP:CIVIL. He is usually responsive to warnings from admins and tones it down for a while when he gets one. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd go as far as suggest 1RR or even 0RR. But otherwise, I support this and I'd say first choice over prop 4. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Remember, we have a really, really long history of various editors coming to ANI about Wtshymanski and nothing being done. A lot of this is because the cases were filed by newbies who ended up behaving worse than Wtshymanski, but a lot of it is because each individual case shows Wtshymanski being somewhat disruptive but not as bad as most of the other disruptive editors we see reported here. I think we should ask for the bare minimum amount of restrictions that will get the job done. Otherwise we risk yet another ANI case that confirms Wtshymanski's observation: "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[52] 2RR can always be changed to 1RR or 0RR if needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. They can probably be left with 3RR, even, with a 1RR or 0RR restriction only with regard to IP edits. In any case, better to just get this out the door than dicker about everything and let Wtshymanski's disruptive reverts continue. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Guy, you have always stated (and I have always agreed) that we should be scrupulously fair and equitable with how we treat Wtshymanski. This ANI deals with a specific trait of Wtshymanski's attitude towards other users of Wikipedia. Whilst I cannot help but agree that there are other aspects of that behaviour that require addressing, they have not been the subject of this ANI. Any sanctions should be limited to addressing the specific complaint(s) made which are those that Wtshymanski has been given the opportunity of answering and/or making his own proposals as to the way forward. That Wtshymanski has chosen not to adequately answer those points is neither here nor there and entirely his choice but I believe that we are entitled to assume that he has no intention of co-operating. I have addressed this again below.
On the other hand, if you wish to raise a suplementary ANI and link it to this one, that might be a different matter, but we do seem to be heading toward a world record on the length of an ANI (both temporally and spatially). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 6: indefinite block[edit]

I have no prior interaction with Wtshymanski (that I know of) but I have seen the thread above and the threads which Guy Macon linked, and I see an editor who has wasted an inordinate amount of the community's time in trying to correct their behaviour. Whatever useful contributions they may have (and they do, unquestionably) they are shrouded by being repeatedly dragged before the drama courts for the same behavioural transgressions over and over and over and over again. Their block log, while short, shows that they're not getting the message that this behaviour is intolerable.

With respect to Guy Macon, who based on reading the threads posted above has a long history of interactions with this editor, a "well-crafted set of restrictions" can only waste more of the community's time dealing with this editor who in Guy's own words "figures out exactly where the line is that will get him blocked and stands with his toes over the line" ([53]). Here are some things that other users have had to say about Wtshymanski over the years:

  • "It seesm [sic] 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." --DieSwartzPunkt [54]
  • "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." --Andy Dingley, emphasis in original [55]
  • "In my opinion, many of these newbie editors could grow into very productive editors if they don't leave in disgust after tangling with Wtshymanski." --Guy Macon [56]
  • "Wtshymanski needs to be given a substantive motivation to change his demeanor, and if his behavior does not improve, then stronger remedies should be used." --Dennis Bratland [57]
  • "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." --attributed to Wtshymanski but I have not found the actual diff

This is a tendentious editor who has been warned time and time again about their behaviour, and who each time backs off just enough to escape admin action and formal sanction, then returns to the same tendentious behaviours. Accordingly, each time the administrators fail to act, even more of the community's time is wasted. Enough of this. Although it may be in good faith, editors like this do not improve the encyclopedia, they hinder and obstruct (and drive away) other editors who do improve it. Thus I propose that Wtshymanski be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, with consideration for the WP:STANDARDOFFER after six months. Ivanvector (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Diff for "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest.":[58] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Option of last resort. Wtshymanski does contribute some good edits in various technical topics, but their reverts and incivil edit summaries leaves much to be desired. I'd rather see the editor banned from further reverting edits, but allow them to continue adding content -- with the warning that further incivil behaviour will lead to an indefinite block. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Undecided. Support. While I agree with everything Ivanvector says, as I mentioned before I strongly dislike the standard ANI "do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, drop a piano on him" practice. At what point does continued refusal to act become de-facto permission to keep acting that way? And is it really fair to suddenly decide that this time we really mean it after leading him to believe that there would never be any consequences as long as he only stuck his toes over the line? Then again, surely he has seen it happen to others, and maybe, just maybe, a block then a return under the standard offer will finally convince Wtshymanski to work collaboratively. I really don't know the answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Upon careful consideration, I have concluded that the disruption outweighs the contributions and thus I support an indefinite community block (as well as supporting the other, weaker remedies). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stongly Support: I speak as an editor who edits from an IP address. I don't claim to be Wikipedia's greatest editor, but I certainly do not vandalise articles or add meaningless content (or at least not intentionally - we all make mistakes from time to time). All edits that I have made to engineering related articles have been reverted by Wtshymanski, always for some frivolous reason, and sometimes with an uncivil edit summary making it clear that I am not wanted. I do not edit anywhere near as frequently as I used to because of the hostile environment created by Wtshymanski. As an affected contributor, and in view of the minimal genuine contribution supplied by Wtshymanski, it is very clear to me that Wikipedia would be a far better environment without Wtshymanski. Indef block him. He has never been here to colaborate on building an encyclopedia. When I do find an article area that is not regularly patroled by Wtshymanski, I have no difficulty in making positive contribution without the continual reverts ([59] - under a previous dynamic IP). (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
We should not indef an editor because it will make WP better, just if that's the only way to make it better. How do you feel about a ban on IP reverts (and only a ban on IP reverts)? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This post is of considerable import bearing in mind that it does come from an editor directly affected by the issue being discussed. What he says is of the greatest relevance and has nailed perfectly the points that I have been endeavouring to make. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support We should definitely be indeffing people who are wasting the community's time with the same crap over and over and over again. Perhaps if this was done more often, there'd be fewer repeat offenders like this guy. Jtrainor (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Really Draconian = really poor idea. Collect (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's try and wrap this up[edit]

From the discussion above on the complaint and the various proposals made, it seems that there is a general consensus that there is a problem with Wtshymanski routinely reverting edits made by IP editors against the general policy of Wikipedia (noting that there was a groundswell of consensus as more examples became available).

Also of great relevance is that Wtshymanski has declined to answer or comment on the points raised in this ANI beyond a statement he made above that he would exercise more care in reverting edits. A statement which he promptly ignored on his very next editing session with two such reverts.

There is also a broad consensus that action of some sort should be taken with opinions varying as to what.

The greatest support is for Proposal 4 the restriction on reverting any IP based edits (7 8 support 1 oppose).

There is a lesser consensus for Option 6 - Indefinite block. (3 4 support 2 oppose 2 1 abstention).

There is a lesser consensus for Option 5 - a broader range of restrictions (2 support 1 oppose).

Unless anyone has anything to add, I move that Option 4, the restriction on reverting any edits for IP address editors be implemented. Enforcement to be via a series of escalating blocks. I note that the last block for unco-operative editing was for one week, so the first block for the first deviation from the restriction should be for one month escalating as required (3 and then 6 months?). Upon the third deviation from the restriction, an indefinite block should be considered as it will be clear by this point that nothing is going to change.

I commend this to the community. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for wrapping this up, and I endorse any restriction imposed here, even an imperfect one, as one that will make the editing environment less hostile to IP editors, per WP:IAR. Please ping me when (not if) this ends up at Arbcom. Ivanvector (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with wrapping this up now with any of the proposed community restrictions. I strongly oppose closing this or letting this go to archive with no action at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Question Could someone who thinks WTS makes good content contributions, give a brief summary of those contributions? "Content contribution" for purpose for purpose of this question specifically means new informative material added to the encyclopedia. This doesn't count reversions and removals of any sort, since those (some good, some bad) have already been discussed. A content contribution assessment separate from any reversions, deletions, and spelling corrections would be helpful in understanding the big picture. Thanks. (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we haven't discussed reversions and removals of any sort. just the subset that is problematical, and I caution against the common "content creation is king, error fixers are second-class editors" attitute. That being said, less than two minutes of searching (I timed it) found these two:
  • Taking a picture that most editors wouldn't know to take or how to describe the significance of and adding it to an aricle:[60][61]
  • Copyediting an article and adding content that most editors would not be able to create: [62]
If anyone wants me to I will take a half an hour and find dozens more. The engineering articles need editors with engineering knowledge. I really don't want to lose Wtshymanski's productive contributions if we can find a way to stop him from constantly finding new ways to be disruptive and driving away other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
+1 Wtshymanski does some good work on tech and EE articles, but continually demonstrates why standard rollback/revert isn't something handed out to everyone (TW notwithstanding). Something needs to be done, but without losing them altogether unless that's the only option left. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Guy, thanks. Yes we have discussed WTS's reversions across the various threads and the RFC. I wouldn't say error fixers are second class editors, but when someone reverts a non-vandalistic content addition, they are saying they know better than the contributor how to contribute content. So if they get into a bunch of ANI's about those reverts, I like to see some evidence that they know how to contribute content themselves before telling others how to do it. I'm satisfied with the examples you gave and your judgment on WTS's additions. If he hadn't made any significant ones, I'd support the indef block proposal. As it is, I defer to you. I'm pessimistic about the other proposals but one can always hope. (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus to close this. Could we have an uninvolved admin write up a summary, take whatever action is required (if any), and close the case? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The broad opinion is that this should be closed with the option 4 sanction. Could an administrator now do the honours. Or are we to believe that raising a problem at this noticeboard is a waste of time and resources? If the administrators are not going to take action then could they at least have the courtesy to leave a note here why and tell us what we should have done, or need to do, to resolve this problem?LiveRail Talk > 08:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I have enacted proposal 4 and recorded it on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

What's the point of being allowed 6 accounts per address per day if...?[edit]

WP:DFTT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Suffice it to say that abuse of the allowance isn't tolerated for long. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

Why does the system even let a single IP address set up 6 accounts in a single day if you admins are just gonna forget that that allowance exists and shut them down anyway? What's the point of having rules if you're just gonna ignore them?

When Are We Gonna...? (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As this is your very first edit, it really isn't clear what you're talking about. If you provide a link to a specific alleged abuse of Wikipedia policy, I'm sure you'll stand a much better chance of getting a satisfactory answer. Squinge (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
what's the point of having rules if you're just gonna ignore them' Ignore all rules' is one of our core policies, didn't you know? Seriously though, I think the high limit's mostly meant so that people who share the same IP don't run into issues, and it's also useful for beginning wp:acc helpers who don't yet have account creator rights. Needless to say, the "allowance" only exists as long as you don't abuse the system. (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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.
This noticeboard is for reporting incidents needing admin attention. This isn't one. If you have an issue with Wikipedia policy, please take it to the relevant talk page.  Philg88 talk 06:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

How about you give the poster a chance to respond before you jump on the "close" template so fast? And then even now, I'll be gone for a few hours. Can't you leave this here and open long enough for me to have a follow-up response to it? Gessh.

Well, how can you tell if someone is supposedly "abusing" the 6-per-IP-per-day rule if you see 6 of them coming in from the same IP address in a given day and that's allowed? And if it still is "abuse" somehow, then why can't I be left with even ONE account that isn't blocked? How can it be "abuse" for me to even have ONE? (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh.... if all your accounts are blocked, then your posting here using an IP is block evasion, isn't it? BMK (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

6 accounts per address per day? Why and why not?[edit]

@DoRD: Will you guys please not close this so fast? I hardly got any chance to respond to it. Can't you wait until the poster of the problem or question has had a chance or few to follow up before you just jump on the "close" template? Geesh. And then will you please actually continue to respond to it instead of just acting like I "don't count" and am "garbage" just because I supposedly "broke one of your rules"? (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(Quoted from before:)

"I think the high limit's mostly meant so that people who share the same IP don't run into issues, and it's also useful for beginning wp:acc helpers who don't yet have account creator rights. Needless to say, the "allowance" only exists as long as you don't abuse the system." (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
So then how can admins tell if someone's supposedly "abusing the system" or using it legitimately if they check that the IP address is the same either way? How should they be able to tell if the 6 created by that IP in the same day might not be "abuse"? And if it never happens, then why not just get rid of that (lower it to 1-2) so that it doesn't give someone a false sense that it's okay?
And even then, if it ends up still being considered "abuse," why shouldn't even one account from that group be left unblocked (maybe the first one in a series or something like that), which would then certainly put the number within reasonability so as not to be considered so-called "abusive"?
Will you guys please leave this open for a while so I can follow up a few times rather than just closing it so fast? As the question's poster, I'd really like to think I should be given a chance to have some words back and forth with you before I just get shut down. Fair enough? (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
How about you answer my question from above? If all the accounts you created are blocked, why shouldn't you be blocked as well for block evasion? And, no, if you're blocked, then you should not be given a chance to discuss this until after you're unblocked. BMK (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't answer your question before, "ken," because I didn't see it before. Where is it?
How do you suppose, "ken" (@Beyond My Ken:), that a given user would ever be able to take care of their problem here if every time they try to say anything, they're immediately blocked indefinitely without warning? I'm not blocked (obviously), but whenever I try to create an account, it gets blocked. When I created 6 accounts in the same day, they all were blocked, as if I had been "abusing" the system, even though the system allows the 6 per address per day. That's just it! Why should all the accounts have been blocked if the system allows that? If that's just gonna be considered "abuse" anyway, then why don't they make the system not allow it? And how can you tell if it is so-called "abuse" or not? And if they are considered so-called "abuse," then why block all of them instead of leaving one--whichever one you guys would consider to be the "okay" one (like first one or whatever)--unblocked, because it would be the one that wasn't "violating"? So then I tried just 2, and they got blocked. So then when I just try one after that, should that one be blocked too? Why shouldn't even one stay unblocked because it's not "violating"? (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Alleged personal attack from admin-impersonator[edit]

WP:DFTT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Blocked for block evasion by Philg88. (non-admin closure) - Amaury (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

Okay, what is user:Beyond My Ken doing acting like an admin by moving my ANI posts on me and telling me what I "can't" do there, and then even answering things as if an admin?

Also, this same NON-admin has resorted to incivility against me by calling me an idiot:

"I'm not an admin.... Go away, you're an idiot. BMK (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)" (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This likely isn't the place to discuss this, but you are required to notify all reported parties of discussions here. I will be doing that now. - Amaury (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the transclusion of BMK's user page in the IP's question. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like I used the wrong formatting symbols--{{}} instead of [[]]--to make a link out of someone's name. I thought I had already fixed those. (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The IP is an IP Sockpuppet of User:IDriveAStickShift. This sort of tantrum following WP:Trolling is typical JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Any chance of getting a block against this block-evading, incompetent, trolling, probable sockpuppet? WP:NOTHERE seems like a reasonable ground for blocking. BMK (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've created a report here. - Amaury (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Blocked for one month per WP:DUCK as prima facie evidence of block evasion.  Philg88 talk 07:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Serial copyright violator[edit]

Copyright investigation has been opened, not much else for general admins to do at this point - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

User:Rick570 is a serial copyright violator. Most recently, Scholasticate [63].
Older examples:

Martin Reyners. [64] and [65]. notice on talk page.
Stephen A. Parke notice on talk page.
Russell Haley, Bob Orr (poet) and Murray Edmond. notice on talk page.
[66] [67]. notice on talk page.
User:Rick570/Francis Douglas. notice on talk page.

Even when copying is allowed by Creative Commons he fails to provide attribution. eg [User:Rick570/Michel Bouillot] [68].
See also: Sections of Sam Hunt (poet) (Icon) are taken from The Oxford Companion to New Zealand Literature (text available here). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

personal attacks by Longtone[edit]

Longtone has been engaging in personal attacks against me on the trajan vuia page for some time now. most recently calling me an obsessive monomaniac [69] and accusing me of sockpuppetry [70], and going all the way back to his insulting me in edit sumaries [71]. This seems to be his way of trying to rectify a content dispute, but my concern here today is his personal attacks.Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you mean TheLongTone, but at any rate...calling you a POV pusher isn't really a personal attack. And s/he even stated that s/he didn't call you a sock (although this is close). Both of y'all maybe need to cool off for a bit, but I don't really see anything warranting admin intervention here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Erpert blah, blah, blah... that no administrative action is necessary at this point. I think you would need to show a more severe pattern of name-calling, and un-civil behavior, etc. Before going to this forum, I think you should post an uncivil tag on the user's talk page, list the incident diffs and say you plan to take them to ANI if they continue along this line. As to the content dispute, you might try asking for a Third Opinion WP:THIRD. (revised) David Tornheim (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Nemes is an SPA solely concerned with pushing his POV re Train Vuia: this is in the face of a num,ber of editors opposing his edits. He does not engage with arguments on the talk page, merely acts hysterically. As he is doing here.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
And I admit my deralings with Nemes have got snippy, but this is in the face of persistent failure to engage with issues on his part: he has also made accusations of improper behaviour agains me and other users, notably User:Binksternet.TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It is you and your fellow vandals(that's what stonewalling and tendentious editing are defined as) Binsternet and donfb who refuse to engage with arguments. And whining about content disputes is not the purpose of this page. you're a veteram editor, you should know that.Ion G Nemes (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. It's for the talk page, where you have made an obnoxious fool of yourself. Incidentally the IP who you claim is my sock is in Montreal. I think it's fairly obvious that I am not.TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • To both of you: Please stop with the Ad_hominems. Calling each other names in this back and forth is not going to solve anything. Each of you should please review Wiki-Incivility and WP:ETIQ. You both need to provide diffs of the behavior you are accusing the other of.
  • To TheLongTone (talk): You accused Ion G Nemes (talk) of being a SPA. However, I looked at Nemes's user contributions [here], and that is not correct. Please do not WP:BITE new users (to the page). This lends credibility to Nemes's accusations against you. Please review this policy guideline from WP:BITE:
Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet." You can point them to those policies if there is valid cause to do so. For example, if a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade).
(revised) David Tornheim (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Read and understood. I admit that I have at times been uncivil in my reactions to the situation I find myself in. And although I do believe that gaming the system has occurred at times, I will not bring it up as an epithet, and restrict all mention of it to situations where it is actually necessary, and in such hopefully rare situations try to do so with tact. It is not my intention to bring allegations of tendentiousness against TheLongTone for any acts he has performed up to this time, I got mad and mentioned something which I honestly believe, but did and do not intend to pursue in his case. I have no idea how to 'strike out' a line of text, but anyone reading this should feel free to strike the word Vandals, and the parenthetical phrase after it(perhaps to be replaced by 'editors'), and to strike the word whining. And I am sorry for that post's tenor.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: However I do not believe I have ever called Thelongtone a sockpuppet at any time. And Since I have no Idea who he is, or where he's from, the whole Montreal thing is, frankly, confusing to me. Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
To Ion G Nemes (talk): Thank you for taking responsibility for your behavior. To strike out a section, add <s> immediately before the text and </s> at the end of the text as I did with this text which you can look at if you edit this page. See also Strikethrough.
-David Tornheim (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I stand by everything I have said. Nemes is to all effects a SPA, very few of his edits are anywhere else. And my other comments are fully justified by his conduct on Talk:Train Vuia. Why provide diffs: almost everythin posted is evidence of his foolish behaviour. Notably the familiar POV that an editor is upholding truth in the face of a cabal of POV pushers.TheLongTone (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I also do not understand why I am accused of biting a newcomer: Nemes has been editing since December 2010. Concetrating on Vuia and Henri Coanda, a very similar topic. This is slightly longer than I have been active on Wikipedia. TheLongTone (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother commenting on this matter, except that it involves an editor I've begun to notice and respect and I hate to see such editors getting themselves into trouble. Longtone, it's not a matter of what you think about the other editor, it's a matter of how you express it. You might think s/he is an SPA, a sock or any number of other things, but it's unproductive to start (or continue) an argument based on those views. That approach never works (I know, I've tried it). Deb (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I have never said anything about Nemes as a person: away from the topic he may very well be delightful. I have, I think, restricted my comments to his editing behaviour, which is I believe another matter. Iand I may have expressed myself robustly: I have not ever been abusive. Anyway, the whole thing is all too silly for words. Incidentally the person who said something about ad hominum comments clearly does not know what the term means.TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
For examples of Nemes' intemperate behaviour, see [72]. For evidence that his attitude towards Vuia is highly biased and refusal to back this opinion with sources, see [73].TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
TneLongTone, Exactly how can you say that calling me a fool, and insisting that I will definitely return under a number of sick personalities (a clearly unfounded attack, which I assert is an accusation of being a sock, after all if I were to post that an editor would just go home and molest his children if he wasn't banned I would certainly have accused him of being a child molestor. (this is not an accusation against any editor, but merely an example.) As to the diff you just supplied, I was attempting to get some action against the posting of alleged personal information on wikipedia, a practice which is supposedly taken quite seriously here (the results of my complaint would seem to belie this), and you showed up to make attacks upon me which were totally unrelated to the issue at hand. You did not address the issue in any way other than to say you knew nothing about it. This appears to be false, since you were at that time, and still probably are, watching that page quite closely and after the attack you immediately started echoing the allegations of my being a sock puppet that were contained therein. I don't think I need to post a diff for THIS since the diff you just supplied is an example, but I believe i can supply others if that is deemed necessary. As to my suggestion that it was wikistalking, are you saying that you just happened to stumble upon this by accident and decide to post abuse unrelated to the subject at hand? This does not just strain credulity, but actually ruptures it. I announced yesterday that I intended to take a wikibreak and return to the vuia page at some later date, but was informed that you seemed to be taking this as an opportunity to post allegations here of a questionable nature without having to worry about my questioning their veracity. So I'm back. Furthermore, as to the third diff I posted when opening this thread, I feel that calling an editor 'sweetie' when deleting his post is clearly abuse. I would like to know if it is the opinion of the editors here that calling a person 'sweetie' during a contentious disagreement is or is not abusive.Ion G Nemes (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
To LongTone: Nemes owned up to his/her behavior. You have not. Your continued accusation against Nemes as a SPA