Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jinxmchue

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: 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC).

Jinxmchue (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 are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Jinxmchue appears to have been extremely unhelpful in resolving a dispute on the Midge Potts aricle. Everything we come up with, he rejects and counters. It appears that he won't let us compromise with him at all.

I filed a request for mediation on the article, but he declined, stating there were issues that we needed to correct before he accepted.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. I want to be able to strike a compromise with Jinxmchue.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SamBC(talk) 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Odd nature 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC) I've found him to be a constant source of disruption on nearly every article he touches, and he has the unfortunate habit Wikistalking and harassing his opponents, which lead to his recent block. I urge him to heed the community's input here.[reply]

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.}

Oh. Here I thought this was about something that actually matters. There is no longer any dispute over the Midge Potts article because I have abandoned my side of the dispute. May those on the other side of the issue enjoy their victory for un-encyclopedic content, ganging up on someone, accusing someone else of being unhelpful in resolving a dispute while being twice as unhelpful themselves, and continually violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA while hiding behind the self-righteous cloak of WP:SPADE. (Didn't like that? Well, it's just a matter of WP:SPADE.) To summarize, I think Ferris Bueller said it best: "You're still here? It's over! Go home. Go." Jinxmchue 03:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

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.