MyWiki:Requests for comment/Davegnz

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC).

---

• Davegnz (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User:Davegnz makes substantial and valuable contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of aircraft-related topics, particularly preserved vintage US military aircraft ("warbirds").

Unfortunately, he also has a long pattern of aggressive, uncivil behaviour and disruptive editing whenever he encounters opinions in the community that differ from his own. He displays a strong sense of ownership of his contributions.

Davegnz is not amenable to abiding by consensus.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

I would like to see Davegnz cease his disruptive behaviour, specifically to

• remain civil to his fellow editors and refrain from making personal attacks on them
• refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to make a point
• undertake to abide by the consensus of the community
• understand that he does not own the material that he contributes to Wikipedia

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

When Davegnz's opinions are challenged, he goes "on the attack" against the editor(s) who have questioned, belittling those editors, and their contributions. He has threatened to list other editors' contributions on AfD (and has attempted to do so) purely on the basis that the article has been worked on or initiated by an editor who has questioned the value of material contributed to by him. He frequently accuses those who disagree with him of "vandalism".

He disrupts Wikipedia to make points, in particular making disruptive page moves when discussion is held about moving articles that he has worked on to names not preferred by him, or again, in retribution against other editors for disagreeing with his preference for the names of articles he has worked on.

When consensus on an issue goes against him, Davegnz will simply ignore that consensus.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Incivility, personal attacks, and harassment

1. Against User:Twas Now - [1] [2]
2. Against User:BillCJ - [3], [4] (edit summary), [5], [6], [7] (NB), [8], [9]
3. Against User:Tassedethe - [10]
4. Against User:MilborneOne - [11], [12] (baseless accusation of plagiarism), [13] (threatening AfD of an article MilborneOne worked on, in retribution for MilborneOne PRODding an article he worked on, as admitted by Davegnz himself here)
5. Against User:Chrislk02 - [14] (baseless RfARB - retribution for voting against his desired outcome in an AfD - rejected as improper)
6. Against User:Akradecki - attempting to AfD articles that Akradecki worked on, as retribution for Akradecki questioning (not even PRODding or AfDing!) the need for a separate article that Davegnz had initiated (AfD noms not actually completed, and removed as bad faith) - [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Baseless accusations of vandalism

1. Against User:Bzuk - [21]
2. Against User:BillCJ - [22]
3. Against User:MECU - [23]
4. Against User:Piotr Mikołajski - [24] (same baseless RfARB as above)

Disruptive page moves

• Intended to intimidate/harass User:Twas Now (note: most of these page moves were actually appropriate, but that wasn't the motivation behind them, as Davegnz himself says here)

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]
6. [30]
7. [31]
8. [32]

• Intended to make a point about naming conventions that he doesn't like (as Davegnz himself says here):

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37] - note the edit summary
6. [38]
7. [39]
8. [40]
9. [41]
10. [42]

Disregard for consensus
One particularly egregious example:

On 19 May, Davegnz suggested a standard for picture captioning to be adopted by WikiProject Aircraft. In the short discussion that followed (now archived here), the proposal failed to find any support, and if anything, showed a consensus against adopting any such guideline. The matter came to a head on 18 August when Davegnz made major changes to the F-16 Fighting Falcon article (in incremental edits starting with this one) along the lines of his previous proposal. A lengthy and at times acrimonious discussion followed here (starting with this edit), involving multiple editors. By the end of it (in late August), there could be no doubt that not only had the idea failed to find consensus, but there was a strong consensus against it.

Davegnz, however, has continued to implement his proposal on the pages that he considers "his" [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] and occasionally elsewhere [48] (note: edit made by Davegnz while not logged in, but plainly him as can be seen in the edit history of the article and of the IP address which only ever edits articles in Davegnz's sphere of interest).

Note: this RfC does not invite comment on this matter as a content dispute; this incident has been included here only as evidence of Davegnz's refusal to be bound by the consensus of other editors.

Ownership
Davegnz has a strong sense of ownership over the articles that he calls "the survivors series".

1. Here he refers to them as "MY aircraft survivors series" (emphasis his).
2. Here he enquires about setting up a separate WikiProject for these articles so that they will not have to conform to the conventions used by WikiProject Aircraft.
3. In this edit, he points out that he has moved copies of these articles into his userspace where he will continue to work on them without ever contributing them to articlespace.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:NPA
3. WP:POINT
4. WP:DE
5. WP:CONS
6. WP:OWN

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Civility
Civility issues have been brought to Davegnz's attention many times by many users. The two most recent are:

1. User:Rlandmann - [49] (10 September)
2. User:MilborneOne - [50] (18 August)
   

Disruption to make a point

1. User:NawlinWiki - [51] (17 September)
2. User:Rlandmann - [52] (12 September)

Consensus
Compromise solutions suggested during the "captions incident" included:

1. User:Bzuk - [53] (23 August)
2. User:Askari Mark - [54] (22 August)

Ownership

1. User:Akradecki - [55] (13 September)
2. User:Rlandmann - [56] (12 September)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

Civility
This attack on User:BillCJ (12 September) took place two days after the more recent reminder to stay civil, as did this attempt to intimidate User:Twas Now (12 September).

Disruption to make a point
The whole series of page moves of articles created by User:Twas Now, starting with this one were made within minutes of User:NawlinWiki asking him to seek consensus before engaging in such action.

Consensus
Multiple examples of image captioning above. Each of these was chosen because it took place after 31 August, by which time the discussion at WikiProject Aircraft was well and truly over: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

Ownership
Short of an editor actually stating that an article is theirs, this issue is harder to indicate in specific diffs - it's easier to see as an overall pattern of behaviour. However, I'd suggest that Davegnz's extreme reaction to the AfDing of the "survivors" series or the suggestion that some material should be trimmed from these lists is evidence of perceived ownership. In particular, his attacks on User:Twas Now, who made (and later voluntarily withdrew) the nomination. The most recent of these occurred only today.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Rlandmann (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
3. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (as far as the edits that I was involved with, namely this user's pagemoves of Boeing 727 and Douglas DC-8 against Wikipedia naming conventions and without seeking consensus).
4. MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Bzuk talk FWiW, although Dave has been a fine contributor to the WP:Aviation Project, his interaction with others is still problematic; one can always hope that a change is coming... Bzuk (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
6. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Regrettably. Dave is a very knowledgeable and hard working editor who has contributed good ideas and a lot of very important content. It is hard to see your hard work treated badly by editors at times, and I believe this is what's leading to Dave's frustrations, but such responses don't help, they only hurt the cause. If Dave would learn to be more patient and flexible in working with the other Project regulars, the vast majority of the issued would be amicably worked through.

Other users who endorse this summary

1. BillCJ (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Nimbus (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Ahunt (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Twas Now 17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Ncmvocalist

In this case, I see the complaining (filing) party as the editors who have certified the basis of the dispute. The other party, is of course the subject of this RFC.

Although certifying the basis of the dispute, AKRadecki has made a very thoughtful and particularly constructive comment regarding the subject of the RFC, and I am hopeful that Davegnz (among others) will read that comment carefully.

Evidence

The complaining party has given about 70 diffs (sometimes repeated) in evidence of the disputed behavior, under several categories. However, I accepted certain diffs, including the following [63] [64] (edit summary) [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

In the absence of filing a filing a report at suspected sockpuppetry, the complaining party suggested that Davegnz has been editing as an anon IP, 209.212.28.50 This is usually inappropriate as an allegation of sockpuppetry, particularly if it has no merit, is considered uncivil. I recommend that the filing party either retract that claim, or file the SSP report as suggested. In any event, I have disregarded this part of evidence for the time being.

Despite this, as a procedural finding, I commend the filing party for keeping their desired outcome realistic, and with the aim of truly trying to amicably resolve the dispute(s) at hand. It is an unfortunate fact that some RFCs have been used as attack zones, and others where users have tried to misrepresent a situation for their benefit and mislead uninvolved users as to the merits of a dispute. Fortunately, this is not one of them. I am of the opinion that the desired outcome specified above is entirely appropriate for this matter, and that this RFC has otherwise significantly followed the spirit of how RFCs should be approached.

Findings

Davegnz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has clearly engaged in disruptive and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith; attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground, and attempts to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. This sort of misconduct is unacceptable. If this sort of behaviour continues, or recommences, then Davegnz may be subject to editing restrictions, blocks or bans in the future, whether these are effectively enforced by administrators, the community, or the Arbitration Committee.

On 18 September 2008, Davegnz was blocked for personal attacks or harassment. Davegnz has not posted a response in this RFC. In fact, since the block and now (06:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)), excepting on 25 September 2008 where Davegnz has blanked his talk page, he has made no edits. It is unclear whether this blanking action is to indicate that he is retiring, taking a break, or wanting to start over, or otherwise. However, if and when he should return to editing Wikipedia, Davegnz is strongly recommended to comply with the filing party’s desired outcome. Specifically, Davegnz should cease his disruptive behaviour…remain civil to his fellow editors and refrain from making personal attacks on them…refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to make a point…undertake to abide by the consensus of the community [and]…understand that he does not own the material that he contributes to Wikipedia.

Principles

All of the editors involved in this matter, particularly Davegnz, are being reminded of the following Wikipedia principles – please comply with them if you wish to continue editing at Wikipedia.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors [emphasis added]. Wikipedia users are therefore expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Summary Conclusion

Davegnz is encouraged to comply with the Wikipedia principles outlined, and comply with the complaining party’s desired outcome.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Rlandmann (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Nimbus (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Ahunt (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
6. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
7. BillCJ (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Summary

Editor stopped editing on 24 October 2008 - should he return and continue engaging in the problematic conduct brought up in this RFC, he may be sanctioned accordingly.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.