Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rvaste
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: 13:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
[edit]This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Cause of concern
[edit]Rvaste has solely made edits to one page, Leonard Feeney. Original edits were substantive and good-faith. [1] [2] [3] Other editors have since made further edits (me for one, e.g. formatting, and refactoring out... ...into a related article) and Rvaste has simply overwritten with the last version they themselves had written [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] except this edit further removes useful links. No edit summaries, comments on article talk page, response to comments on user talk page, or any other communication. jnestorius(talk) 13:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Applicable policies and guidelines
[edit]List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
Desired outcome
[edit]Simply responding on a user talk page or the article talk page would be enough. Nobody is claiming any version of the article is perfect, but without any engagement or interaction between users, a consensus cannot emerge. jnestorius(talk) 14:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
[edit]Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
- jnestorius(talk) 14:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC) [11] [12]
- [13] [14] There is no talking with this editor because basically he never talks. I almost wonder if he realises what the new messages bar is for. I tried to e-mail him but he hasn't set an e-mail address. For the rest I kind of left the article alone when I realised I reverted too much for my liking and since his edits are, albeit not an improvement at all, they are also not vandalism. Garion96 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
---
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
Questions
[edit]Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Response
[edit]{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}
Response to concerns
[edit]{Add summary here.}
Applicable policies and guidelines
[edit]List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
Users endorsing this response
[edit]Questions
[edit]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
[edit]RFC is academic now: subject has been permanently blocked per WP:LEGAL - see block log Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposed solutions
[edit]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
[edit]1)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
[edit]2)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
[edit]3)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Discussion
[edit]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.