User:Durova/Dzonatas RFC

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Dzonatas | talk | contributions)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

User:Dzonatas has been a disruptive and counterproductive editor for many months. At Wikipedia:3RR he attempted a unilateral change to Wikipedia policy in order to circumvent his repeated blocks for violations of that policy WP:POINT and persisted in his attempts despite widespread opposition WP:CON. He obstructed progress at Computer science and Joan of Arc, altering both articles without suitable references WP:V, WP:NOR, while accusing other editors of conducting original research even after they provided multiple references. Both Computer science and Joan of Arc underwent formal mediation and were page protected because of his disruption. User has been blocked for WP:3RR violations at Computer science. User has also been blocked for WP:3RR, altering other editors' talk page comments, and general timewasting on Template:WikiProject Computer science. With near certainty, this user is also the unacknowledged sockpuppet of User:Jhballard. Durova 07:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Description

This RfC probably should have been done months ago. I delayed in the hope that it would not be necessary and now it is rather long. Mainly I pursue this because Joan of Arc rose to featured status during a lapse in Dzonatas's participation. He returned and resumed and disruptive behavior as soon as it became a featured article. I hope that feedback from a broader range of people will halt the damage.

• At Wikipedia:3RR, Dzonatas made a unilateral attempt to change policy in and circumvent the repeated blocks he was receiving for violating the 3 revert rule (18 January and 9 February). His edits to this page were not a momentary lapse of judgement, but a campaign he conducted from 10 February 2006 to 3 March 2006 in which he also altered the text at Wikipedia:Revert shortly before citing it at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule to justify his attempts at changing policy. He archived his user page immediately after receiving a third administrator warning.

• At Joan of Arc he violated WP:NOR and WP:OWN from March 2005 to December 2005 and again in March 2006. He originally edited as User:Jhballard and switched to the sockpuppet User:Dzonatas on or about 20 November 2005. Edits and comments under both usernames cover exactly the same style, content, issues, and tone. He has responded in first person to comments directed at the previous username. His content edits at Joan of Arc tended toward one purpose: validation of his family tree that claims descent from one of Joan of Arc's brothers. This violated WP:V#Sources. He obstructed attempts to improve the article. Mediation failed to resolve the problems. In December 2005 he attempted to copyedit the article using the United States Securities and Exchange act of 1934 as a style guide. He violated WP:3RR rule with 4 reverts in under 24 hours and forced the article into page protection. From late December 2005 to 8 March 2006 he was inactive at this article and it rapidly rose to featured article status. As soon as it became a featured article he returned and made spurious changes and claims in violation of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:POINT.

• Computer science went into mediation because of his disruption in late autumn. He also caused it to be page protected in December and again in January. During the January page protection the editors conducted an informal poll, which concluded 6-1 that the editors could collaborate harmoniously were it not or Dzonatas. The lengthy dissenting voice was Dzonatas. He was blocked in January for violating WP:3RR. He claimed that other editors conducted original research even after they provided as many as 7 references. As at Joan of Arc, he was active under both usernames and conducted himself the same way on both of them. He never answered direct questions whether he was the same person.

• Template:WikiProject Computer science became a hotbed of contention regarding grammar and syntax while he was active. Other editors were in agreement and repeatedly sought compromise and consensus. Dzonatas was blocked for violating WP:3RR and general disruption.

---

This editor acts with subtlety. A typical post, viewed in isolation, gives the appearance of polite and reasonable activity, such as here [1] at Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club. The pattern emerges in the larger picture: he suggested a blocking limit for administrators immediately after two administrators threatened to block him for the third time in less than two months. In making the proposal he failed to disclose his conflict of interest. When the harmonious editing club's guidelines do not serve his pupose he disregards them: the club suggests that memebers post to a talk page before altering an article's text. Dzonatas belongs to the harmonious editing club, yet he not only changed text before commenting on talk, he did so repeatedly to an official Wikipedia policy for ten days before he responded on the talk page. He also altered Wikipedia:Rules just in time to cite his altered version at the 3RR talk page. When he got blocked for violating 3RR he decided the policy needed to be softened, but two months earlier he threatened another user who reverted only twice in a day (while failing to mention his own four reverts performed the same day) and the same day as one of his bans he claimed that policy (as applied to another editor) allows only one revert a day. He chides others about the very policies and guidelines he tramples.

He cloaks his disruptive campaigns under the rubric of copyediting or content discussion. Some of his assertions are plainly absurd, such as the idea that hallucinogenic drugs had been spliced into the DNA of someone who died six centuries ago, or that a piece of New Deal financial law constitutes a usage guide for editing medieval history. Other contentions are equally absurd on more technical levels and require a specialist's knowledge to uncover. Even when uncovered and refuted with authoritative citations, this editor's usual response is to ignore the citations for a while and then revive the old absurdities as if they had never been refuted. "Silence doesn't imply consent," he once stated, "Silence is war." [2]

Regarding copyediting, I have some expertise on the subject. I was at the top of my class in a graduate writing program. The "copyediting" of User:Dzonatas is smoke that obscures clear prose. Many users have questioned his language skills to the point of wondering whether his first language is English. He insists that it is and persists in conducting what he calls copyedits. After months of assuming good faith I conclude this is mere obstructionism. He is sometimes sarcastic but never profane, and in the long run this type of disruption probably does the project more harm than juvenile vandalism because the perpetrator gets away with it for longer. I have rarely if ever seen him make a useful edit. Durova 07:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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.)

Wikipedia:3RR

1. Article alterations: (first edit 10 February 2006) [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].
2. Article talk: (first edit 20 February 2006) [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44].
3. Changes to Wikipedia:Revert: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49].

Joan of Arc

1. Claimed his aunt's amateur geneology was an encyclopedic source [50] and [51], with additional bad faith accusation against other editors [52], with the implication that it was a centuries-old manuscript rather than his aunt's creation a few decades ago [53], admitting its actual date of creation [54], admitting it was unreferenced [55] and [56], claiming that his transcription to Wikibooks satisfies WP:V [57] and [58] and [59], claiming that WP:V is guideline rather than policy [60], quoted WP:V and still denied that it applied to him [61]. Text of his family tree [62].
2. Suggested hallucinogenic drugs were spliced into Joan of Arc's DNA [63], assured mediator and other editors that this was no joke [64].
3. Disregarded citations of mainstream scholarship and standard sources [65], [66], [67].
4. "Copyedited" the article on the basis of (at best) misunderstood rules of English grammar, possible deliberate disruption in violation of WP:Point: passive voice [68], first person and third person [69], false claims of bad syntax [70], cited the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as a usage guide for editing an article about medieval French history [71] and [72].
5. Altered the comments of other editors. These alterations are usually subtle changes that make the other editor appear less literate or more emotional, which he followed (not always immediately) with posts under his own name that tell the other editor to calm down. This occurred during mediation.[73], [74], [75], [76].
6. Attacks and bad faith: speculation about another editor's state of mind [77], accusation of bad faith and called another editor a "crackpot" [78] and [79], sarcasm [80], constructed spurious accusation of a 3RR violation against another user (shortly after he reverted 4 times in under 24 hours) [81] and [82], false accusation of OR regarding material that had been cited repeatedly with complete reference including page number [83].
7. First post to Talk:Joan of Arc as sockpuppet User:Dzonatas. Responded in first person to comments another editor had directed at User:Jhballard. [84]
8. Quoted the WP:3RR wording "an electric fence" and claimed it's enforceable when another editor makes 3 reverts in 25 hours. [85]
9. Fictitious references: named a list of works and claimed they spelled things certain ways, most of which are false claims [86], (from another user) a properly cited enumeration on the same subject [87], created a reference to parish registers even though parish registers for non-noble births did not come into use for several generations after Joan of Arc died [88] and [89] (the sole pretext for these latter edits is extrapolation from his aunt's family tree, as stated here [90]).
10. Violated WP:3RR: [91], [92], [93], [94].

Computer science

1. Page protection of 13 December: [95]
2. The reason for the January 18 block is not explained on the user's block log. Here's the article history. Each revert reinstates a stub section about careers between 17:35, 16 January 2006 and Revision as of 12:38, 17 January 2006: [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102].
3. Page protection resulted 20 January: [103]
4. Archived active discussions: [104]
5. Spuriously accused another editor of violating WP:NOR even though the editor had provided 7 citations. [105]
6. Another editors identified similarities between User:Dzonatas and User:Jhballard, asks whether they are the same person. [106]. Dzonatas claimed to reply on the editor's talk page, but none of his replies confirm or deny the question of sockpuppetry.
7. Sarcasm, accusation of bad faith [107].

Template:WikiProject Computer science

1. Altered other users' posts to template talk: [108], [109], [110], [111]
2. Template talk: spurious accusations of bad faith and revert violations [112], misrepresented revert policy [113] and [114], spurious accusations of 3RR violations [115], accusation of bad faith [116], spurious censorship claim [117]
3. Block log of User:Dzonatas [118].

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:3RR: WP:POINT.
2. Joan of Arc: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Civility, WP:3RR.
3. Computer science: WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:NOR, WP:V.
4. Template:WikiProject Computer science: WP:3RR, WP:POINT.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Wikipedia:3RR: Administrator's warning to User talk:Dzonatas: [119], response from User:Dzonatas [120], second warning from same administrator [121], response from User:Dzonatas, a different administrator's warning [122], response from User:Dzonatas [123], User:Dzonatas archived the page 5 minutes later [124].
2. Joan of Arc: [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138].
3. Computer science: Mediation [139], WP:3RR caution by another editor [140]. Page protection [141]. Another editor identified User:Dzonatas as the sole cause of the need for page protection [142]. Every other editor (except Dzonatas) agreed [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153]. A third party pleads for focus on content rather than semantics [154].
4. Template:WikiProject Computer science: [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165].

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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 (sign with ~~~~):

Semi-outside view by JzG

I find Dzonatas to be argumentative b ut reasonable. Since I am argumentative myself, I find it hard to condemn him for that. Much of the disputed behaviour is by Jhballard (talk · contribs) and the validity of this RfC is largely dependent on the assumption that Dzonatas and Jhballard are one and the same. I therefore suggest that this RfC is placed on hold pending WP:RFCU, which I have now requested, citing this RfC.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Just zis Guy you know? 18:57, 11 March 2006 (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.