Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Xino

message: Would adding the discussion on Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game) be worth it? Because User:BlazeHedgehog  and I  tried to resolve a dispute there, too (he kept removing a tidbit on "breakdance fighting", as sourced by a magazine scan, instead screaming "WAIT FOR E3" at us). This  was his response. Lengthy, somewhat difficult to read, very heated (to the point he uses "f*king [sic]" a few times). This isn't the first time I've had conflict with him, although I can't remember where the exact incident before was for any further evidence. --Shadow Hog 13:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely worth it to add the above mentioned discussion. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Xino, I (clearly) have some issues with your response. To run through them:
#Re: Reversions "back to normal": When you revert dozens of edits per week without necessity, and call every one of them "back to normal", then something is wrong - unless you're responding to vandalism, very few edits should ever be a reversion "back to normal". As such, it's insulting to have so many of my edits reverted "back to normal" - and I'm sure that I'm not the only editor that feels this way.
#Re: Erroneous edits: I never said that all your edits were erroneous. I was pointing out that you have, on more than just a few occasions, inserted false, misleading, unverifiable or plagiarised information, a fact for which I provided a substantial amount of evidence.
##Re: Reversion of changes to your edits (particularly those involving erroneous information): On a number of occasions, most notably during the Unreal Championship 2: The Liandri Conflict edit war. The links provided in Point 4 are the evidence I presented for this point.
#Re: Playing the Game as a qualification: Xino, I'd like to turn the question you just asked me, back on you. What's point in trying to contribute to an article by acting as if you know it all? People that have never played the game are still capable of noticing copyvios, incorrect grammar and spelling, blatantly false information and contradictions within the article - those aren't things you need to have studied the game extensively for. 
#Re: Bannination. Xino, I'm not interested in your being banned - if I were, I'd have happily taken this to ArbCom. As it is, I simply wanted to make you aware that your conduct is not appreciated by other users of Wikipedia, and that you've acted poorly in recent months. Rather than attempt to have you banned, I'd simply like you to:
::*Learn to take edits more graciously,
::*Accept consensus,
::*Stop acting in a way that implies ownership of the articles you edit
::*And, most importantly, be civil to other editors. 
If you would at least be civil to other users, I'd be content. That's a reasonable enough request, isn't it?
RandyWang 13:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: >x<ino 14:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that Xino's above response is a pretty typical example of his general attitude towards Wikipedia.  He's not interested in collaboration, he refuses to treat other editors with anything but contempt, and he's convinced that he knows more about the subjects he contributes to than anybody else, making him always right.  I'm in agreement that Xino is probably very young; his attitude and the way he seems to take edits as personal attacks suggest that he's not had much adult social experience.  Xino, if I may provide a minor insight into the "civil conduct" that RandyWang suggested above: the more civil you are, the more likely we are to actually listen to what you have to say.  As it is, your posts are extremely juvenile.  If you really want to convince people that your ideas or information is correct, I think the your only real option is to treat them with respect.  Otherwise we just stop listening to you.  --waka 15:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: >x<ino 15:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Xino left this message on my talk page, indicating that he's not at all interested in changing his ways. So, what do we do? RandyWang 22:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Personally, I'd like to wait a bit until we can tell if he was serious. If he actually mends his ways (if only a little), I'm happy to count this RfC as successful - otherwise, I'd consider submitting this to the Mediation Committee. RandyWang 01:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus far, given a little dispute between him and Blaze yesterday, he's not mended his ways at all. RfM it is, then? --Shadow Hog 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I'll do it tonight when I get home, unless you want to do it before then. RandyWang (raves/rants) 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've posted an RFM. Please see your talk page. RandyWang (raves/rants) 10:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xino's Response (...and my reply)