Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Davegnz

An ideal outcome[edit]

I wish now that I had included a more tangible point of closure when drafting this RfC, so I'd like to suggest the following:

While I've often disagreed with Davegnz, my impression is that he's the type of man whose word means something. If he would simply give us his assurance that he's going to "turn over a new leaf" with regard to the four points listed in "desired outcomes", then I'd strongly suggest that we drop this and go back to writing about flying machines, which is why we're here, isn't it?

By the same token, I agree with a point alluded to in Akradecki's endorsement; that the relationship itself between Davegnz and the regulars of WP:AIR has become toxic. If Davegnz will give us the assurance I mentioned above, then I think that those of us who have been working most closely with him should take him at his word, agree to let bygones be bygones, and make a fresh start with him as a valued member of the community. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is even that necessary? Davegnz' only fault seems to be that he cares too much about making the articles in question as good as possible, and that he's strayed across some behavioural guidelines in the diligent pursuit of this goal. IMO the desirable outcome is simply to make contribution safe for all editors. This doesn't require anyone to admit fault; That's sometimes very helpful but not always. The first thing we need is a confirmation that guidelines have been breached. That might even be enough, or it might be helpful to direct Davengz to pay particular attention to some specific behavioural guideline. Andrewa (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If his behaviour toward Twas Now had been a single, isolated incident, then I would probably agree with you. Unfortunately, it's not. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the filing party (or users who have certified the basis of the dispute): I've looked over this and offered my view. In the meantime, if you wish for the evidence concerning this IP to be considered, at least by myself, then you need to file a WP:SSP report. In the absence of a successful report, I don't consider it appropriate to include that part of evidence so have disregarded it in my findings. Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ncmvocalist. The IP evidence relates to a single diff (numbered [48] in the RfC). At no stage did I claim that the IP address was being used abusively; while I'm 100% certain that the edit in question was made by User:Davegnz, I don't believe that he was editing anonymously for any untoward reason. Rather, I believe that the sequence of edits starting here and continuing for about 10 minutes with a logged-in edit by Davegnz in the middle of them was probably the result of a user error and unintentional. Please feel free to disregard this one particular point of evidence; I think that filing a SSP over this would be abusive of process, so I won't. However, since I think that the evidence for this edit coming from Davegnz is overwhelming, neither will I strike it from the RfC - other community members choosing to offer their views should examine this evidence and make up their own minds. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - I didn't put too much emphasis on that part. He could be bold in violating a consensus, but he can also be reverted - if he were to revert again, instead of or admist discussing, and if the double revert happened again, then I'd have dealt with that issue of edit-warring, and would have filed the SSP report myself because I would want to know about the IP (as the anon was blocked for 3RR previously, and that would establish that this isn't a one-off of some sort). Anyway, cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This IP just left a very nice message on my user page. If an SSP hasn't started on it as yet, I'd like to request one now. There's no doubt in my mind it's from Dave, but it would be helpful to tie this IP to him if he's using it in an attempt to "burn his bridges" anonymously. RL, his "note" came right after I sent my email to you; trust me, it is quite tempting! - BillCJ (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A less-than-ideal outcome[edit]

Sadly, it looks like this has headed in the opposite direction from ideal, as evidenced by this [1] bad faith AfD nom. Looks like he's moving to a different wiki, and sending out parting shots. I've closed the AfD early as a bad faith nom. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sad indeed, but given his abrasive and uncompromising temperament, it might be the best thing for him. His "transferring" the article, however, poses a conundrum in that he doesn't own his work here. Doesn't that mean he needs to license or at least credit Wikipedia? Or does it matter? Askari Mark (Talk) 17:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had to credit WP for copied article on PlaneSpottingWorld, and I assume it's the case for Wikia too. I think he created 11 "survivors" articles, but if he creates any new ones from scratch at Wikia, he would not have to credit WP. I don't know enough about Wikia to know if he can still "own" scratch content or not. - BillCJ (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the terms of the GFDL, the original source(s) of the content must be acknowledged; usually this can be satisfied with a link back to Wikipedia (although importing the entire edit history of the article should also provide the necessary compliance). As for ownership of material, all contributions to Wikia websites are required to be made available under the GFDL as well. In this specific case, it means that anything published on Wiki Warbirds may be republished elsewhere by anyone for any reason. It'll be up to the Wiki Warbirds community (when/if it arises) to decide whether the contributor of material should get any special say in how content on that site itself develops. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]