Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Montana's Defender

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

Statement of the dispute
This user acts in a disruptive manner on a regular basis, and utterly refuses to talk to anyone on a talk page. First warning was several months ago, and was blanked  with a two word reply. Next warning was simply undone. User's | talk page history shows a pattern, leading right up to today of simply blanking/ignoring their own talk page every time, never responding. A search of this user's last 500 edits reveals one actual posting to a talk page, which they did not sign. Considering all the warnings (far more than 4 warnings, from more than 2 users) I think an RFC is in order. Wikipedia works by consensus, and this user does not respect that and will not participate in discussion. I don't like being bogged down in talk as opposed to actual article work either, but it is sometimes a necessary part of editing here and this user has roundly ignored many, many warnings and comments on their talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Desired outcome
What would be nice would be if why this is a problem could be made clear to Montana, and they would learn to respect the WP:BRD cycle, as opposed to edit warring and simply ignoring talk page messages, without the need to drag this over to WP:ANI and look for a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Description
I have been watching this user's page for some time, and noticed the unresponsiveness on their talk page. It became progressively clearer that this user did not respect the idea that Wikipedia is a group effort, and we need to at the very least be civil and not edit war. After some discussion with User:Ward3001 who has repeatedly butted heads with this user, I decided to initiate this RFC in order to gauge consensus on this type of unresponsive behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * talk page history makes it clear user blanks all messages without any discussion, now replacing them with a hidden comment "PLEASE NOTE THAT THREATS WILL BE REPORTED" whatever that means.
 * Edit warring, removing sourced content to an extent that both parties could have been blocked had anyone asked for it, again with zero discussion on talk.

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:CON consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for decision making, and what keeps the peace, such as it is, here, and this user appears uninterested in what anyone else has to say.
 * WP:BRD while not an actual policy or guideline, has broad support throughout the project.
 * WP:3RR edit warring raises the stress level and is harmful to articles

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * One editor is advising about an edit war, the other advising against vandalism and asking them to not simply ignore warnings. User next two edits were to blank out these warnings This pattern is repeated over and over and over in the talk page history.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
I know page histories are not the preferred form of evidence here, but this user's talk page history shows the pattern quite clearly. Every warning or other message is simply blanked, without any change in behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * --EEMIV (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I endorse this summary. I have tried repeatedly to discuss with this user his problem edits, but the only response is that he deletes all messages on his talk page. He has a pattern of repeating errors, such as violation of Wikipedia's naming conventions, even after repeated attempts to explain the problems. Some of his problem edits are more serious, such as personal attacks and deletion of well sourced material with no edit summary or explanation on the talk page. He seems to assume ownership of a few articles, especially Dakota Fanning and Dakota (given name) (on which he has repeatedly and deliberately removed all entries except for Dakota Fanning; for example, see here, here, here, and here). The biggest problem is his complete refusal to discuss his edits. Ward3001 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I endorse this summary, particularly considering his edits today. His current comments (e.g. ) on his talk page are disturbing and out of place on Wikipedia. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2009 (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.}

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

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.