Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:26, 5 May 2006

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 12:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

• Xino (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

User:Xino has a very long history of abrasiveness toward other users. In his time here, he has repeatedly acted in a totally uncivil manner on multiple articles and talk pages (both through edit summaries, the content of his posts, and his conduct on Misplaced Pages). This user has taken to effectively claiming ownership of articles that they edit in any major way, resulting in the (ultimately unsuccessful) intervention of other editors, including at least one administrator.

In general, Xino will make significant contributions to an article, then attack any other user that attempts to change it in any major way. This may take the form of reversions (he's been known to revert large numbers of edits, even small and valid ones, saying that he's returning the page "back to normal"), large changes to the text of the page that otherwise remove the previous editor's contribution, or prolonged attacks toward them on either their user talk page, or the talk page of the article in question.

In particular, his actions at Shenmue and Talk:Shenmue have drawn my attention as totally unacceptable, and warrant a RfC. On this article alone, he has:

• Made erroneous edits to the article in question,
• Reverted changes that remove unverifiable and insignificant points,
• Provided insulting and derogatory edit summaries, often calling changes made by others "cheap",
• Lashed out at other editors of the page, on the dubious basis that they had never played the game and were therefore unqualified to edit the page,
• Told would-be mediators to "mind their own business", as they "wouldn't understand".

At other articles, he has repeatedly made copyvios (even re-inserting them upon removal, with no attempt to edit the original material for legitimate use), resulting in his abuse of users that sought to remove them.

This is not the only occasion on which Xino has acted in this fashion, nor do I expect it to be the last.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Evidence that he has made meritless edits: ,
2. Evidence that he has attacked other users, both through talk pages and edit summaries: , , , ,
3. Evidence that he has claimed ownership of articles, either through his conduct or implication: ,

   • In previous, but related, disputes: , Admin Katefan0's intervention

4. Evidence that he has made and defended repeated copyvios on the same article, and from the same sources: , , ,

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:EQ
3. WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE
4. Misplaced Pages:Ownership

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. User:Waka:
2. User:Golbez:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Golbez 13:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC). I also submit this for evidence: . My feeling is, Xino is a very young chap who just doesn't understand how these things work.
2. waka 13:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
3. RandyWang 13:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC) I obviously support this. I concur with Golbez's statement above, that Xino's attitude is more the result of ignorance/inexperience than actual malice.

Other users who endorse this summary

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:

(he's been known to revert large numbers of edits, even small and valid ones, saying that he's returning the page "back to normal""Returning the page back to normal...answer me this question, is that a good sign or bad sign?

Made erroneous edits to the article in questionMy edits are all errors!? If they are all errors, then I suggest, 50% wiki members will be reverting all my edits!

Reverted changes that remove unverifiable and insignificant points,Since when!?

Provided insulting and derogatory edit summaries, often calling changes made by others "cheap",And what is wrong with cheap? you wanna be expensive!?

Lashed out at other editors of the page, on the dubious basis that they had never played the game and were therefore unqualified to edit the page,YES! Wat is da point of trying to contribute to a article by acting as if you know it all!? The only thing you are capable of doing to the article is watching out for vandals and correcting mistakes. Not adding info's you think are in the game.

old would-be mediators to "mind their own business", as they "wouldn't understand".Do you mean that, I have told them to mind their own business many times or just once!?

1. Evidence that he has made meritless edits: ,

      2. Evidence that he has attacked other users, both through talk pages and edit summaries: , , , 
      3. Evidence that he has claimed ownership of articles, either through his conduct or implication: , 

                 * In previous, but related, disputes: , Admin Katefan0's intervention

      4. Evidence that he has made and defended repeated copyvios on the same article, and from the same sources: , , , 

Trust me...you are just wasting your time, with that!

First of all. I got nothing to say! I don't like arguging, an't my style! They ban me, DO YOU THINK I GIVE A @SS DAMN! Wiki will be the one losing out, NOT ME! Cuz when you ban me, others who will go through this experince, will also leave.

Trust me, sometimes when i edit, I do know I am wasting my time! Yea, most people might know wiki, but do they trust them!? NO because anyone can edit the article, which could lead to a false info!

>x<ino 18:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.