Wikipedia:Requests for comment/POnju

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: 18:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC).

POnju (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 purposefully ignores rules governing WP:AUTO, WP:V, WP:NPA, and WP:NPOV. While some factual alterations might be permissible under the autobiographical rule, the user deliberately reverts edits made by a single user and injects unverifiable personal attacks. User has also demonstrated that he is not operating from a position of good faith per WP:AGF. User has also made personal threats against another Wiki user and committed acts of off-Wiki retaliation against at least one Wiki editor, further showing a lack of good faith.

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.)

Cases of breaking editing an article about both himself and his website: [1] (first instance), [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; also note that every contribution he has made to Wiki so far has been to the article about him[7]
Cases of personal attacks and not assuming good faith about other editors: [8] (specifcally, the edit summary which read: "Undoing your BS changes Xu. If you don't think its verifiable, find me one, just ONE other place that has a remotely similar avatar policy"), [9] (specifcally, the edit summary which reads: "It already degenerates the article whenever you edit it Xu, but next time learn a bit more about the process before you edit it. You have no idea or appreciation for the amount of work it is"), [10] (specifcally, the edit summary which reads: "reverting to hanna's version, putting in truth instead of lies"), [11] (calling a Wiki editor a "rampant egoist"), [12] (calling a Wiki user a "hypocritical asshole" and undoing the removal of his earlier personal attack)
Case of a personal threat: [13] ("Don't you dare edit my words you hypocritical asshole.")
Case of off-Wiki retaliation made by the user against another Wiki editor stemming in part from Wiki edits: [14]
Second case of off-Wiki retaliation made by the user against another Wiki editor stemming in part from Wiki edits (the first resulted in restricton to OO, the second was a ban): [15]

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)

Reminders of WP:AUTO via user's talk page: [16], [17], [18]
Attempts to resolve content dispute via article's talk page: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]
Filing of a WP:WQA: [27], [28]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

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.}

Xuanwu, I defended you and pled your case several times at pOnju.net. You seem to have baited this user here ( a new user you should note ) in order to get him 'banned' from Wikipedia so that you can have revenge. You know the rules here and are swift to try to apply them to him while you have a personal talk page filled with corrections to your posts. I'm sorry to have called you friend seeing this behavior. I'm looking forward to seeing the pOnju article deleted so that you can stop baiting this user into your arena.Jonathan888 (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2006 (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.