User:134340Goat/Eaglestorm

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: 06:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC).

---

• Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.

Cause of concern

Several times, this user has deleted my edits to article without explanation. My edits did not violate Wikipedia's rules. When I asked on the articles' talk pages about how to improve the artcile, this user did not attempt to answer my questions and just told me I was whining. As this continued, I left a message on his talk page simply asking why he was deleting all of my edits. He did not respond and instead deleted my message and left a sarcastic comment in the summary. I then tried several more times to get answers, and the user then accused me of trolling. I was in no way being uncivil or iirational; I merely asked a simple question. When I looked at this user's talk page, I noticed that he has done this same thing multiple times before. The user has received warning of another block before, and perhaps it is time for just that.

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule Rule was violated

Desired outcome

I feel it would be best if this user was blocked for not allowing constructive edits and being uncivil and immature.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(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.)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eaglestorm&action=history Here, one can see my several attempts to have my questions answered and this user's unneccesary remarks.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metal_Gear#Themes This is the talk page that began this whole dispute.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

1. 134340Goat (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.

1. Meggieh69 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions to certifiers

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.

Questions to named user

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Additional views

This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.

Outside view by

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

Template 1

1)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template 2

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template 3

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.