Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 12:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 Wikipedia). 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.

He has also abused various talk pages, using them as a medium for pointless trolling, forcing other editors to revert talk pages multiple times in order to remove the content that he adds. This, while not his only transgression, goes a long way toward demonstrating his total lack of respect for Wikipedia or its editors.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  1. Evidence that he has made meritless edits: [1], [2]
  2. Evidence that he has attacked other users, both through talk pages and edit summaries: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]
  3. Evidence that he has used talk pages to troll: [16], [17]
  4. Evidence that he has claimed ownership of articles and fair use images, either through his conduct or implication: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]
  5. Evidence that he has made and defended repeated copyvios on the same article, and from the same sources: [24], [25], [26], [27]
  6. Evidence that he has abused talk pages in order to troll: [28], [29], [30], [31]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. User:Waka: [32]
  2. User:Golbez: [33]

[edit] 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: [34]. My feeling is, Xino is a very young chap who just doesn't understand how these things work. Though, the more chances we give him to mature, the more he seems to dive deeper into immaturity.
  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.
  4. BlazeHedgehog 13:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Count me in. As it's been said, Xino does make good edits sometimes - but it's very frusterating when you want to add information he does not like (even if it's from a verified source), such as the recent troubles with him over Sonic the Hedgehog. [35]
  5. Shadow Hog 17:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) - per Blaze. It's hard to make any improvement on an article (namely the one linked) when it gets reverted so quickly, instead of having something like Template:fact instead.

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 20:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC) I'm convinced that a significant language barrier (and lack of acknowledgement of it on Xino's part) is a large part of the problem.
  2. Retodon8 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC) First of all, I don't want Xino banned. This page is to resolve a conflict by getting opinions from people not part of the conflict. Somehow Xino doesn't seem to understand this is not about getting him banned, or owning him, or anything like that. I also believe the fact that Xino isn't fully fluent in English adds to this whole conflict. The fact that he doesn't spell-check and leaves a lot of errors behind isn't the biggest issue. It appears as though he simply refuses to listen to what people are saying, or choosing to simply ignore what's being said. He doesn't seem to respect others, or their opinions. The same goes for edits; he clings to his believe that people that haven't played a game shouldn't edit an article, unless it's a simply typo fix. He has literally claimed an article is his, despite the way Wikipedia really works. He resolves to name-calling and repeating himself instead of giving actual facts to show the merit of his point of view. Basically his opinions and beliefs differ from the norm as well as Wikipedia's (nothing wrong with that), and he just isn't willing to accept that this is the case. I hope he realises this, becomes less defensive and more open to others, so everybody can be more constructive. Of course, this is all from my perspective, I could be wrong with my assumptions.

[edit] 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: [1], [2]

      2. Evidence that he has attacked other users, both through talk pages and edit summaries: [3], [4], [5], [6]
      3. Evidence that he has claimed ownership of articles, either through his conduct or implication: [7], [8]

                 * In previous, but related, disputes: [9], Admin Katefan0's intervention

      4. Evidence that he has made and defended repeated copyvios on the same article, and from the same sources: [10], [11], [12], [13]

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)


I don't really see what RandyWang is trying to prove, getting every idiot from Wiki who as a problem about me. Like I sad before, and I will say it again once more, ban me, I don't care!

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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.