Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roux


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Formerly

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

Statement of the dispute
Disputes with PrinceOfCanada/Roux are lengthy and have taken place over numerous article, talk pages, noticebards, and the like. Though notified on muliple occasions about how his attitude and behaviour appears and affects both people and the project, the habits continue. The scope of this RfC/U is thus necessarily broad, as it concerns a pattern of behaviour over a number of months, and not a single specific dispute.

Desired outcome
PrinceOfCanada/Roux needs to become a cooperative editor. Preferred outcome:

Agrees to the following voluntary restrictions for a period of six months, enforced by escalating blocks which will also reset the six month limit:


 * 1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed.
 * 1RR in relation to any and all images within article space.
 * When editing, is required to stick solely to guidelines and gain consensus for any unique interpretations of existant guidelines and/or implementation of new ones.
 * Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by an administrator.
 * When engaged in conversation, is required to stick solely to content.

PrinceOfCanada/Roux has been requested to cease his disruptive behaviour by his own volition; it remains preferred that PrinceOfCanada/Roux voluntarily agree to restrictions, rather than having them imposed upon him via ArbCom. There is a pre-existing consensus that constant patterns of incivility and refusal to cooperate are poisonous to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, it is true that when PrinceOfCanada/Roux is not engaging in edit wars, pushing his interpretations of guidelines and/or new policies, being incivil, and the like, he does contribute valuable content to the project.

Description
The key disruptive traits in Roux's behaviour can be summarised as follows:
 * Incivil and abusive behaviour, on both talk pages and in edit summaries
 * Tendenitious editing
 * Refusal to cooperate in discussion
 * Officious attitude
 * Refusal to compromise
 * Repeated focusing of conversation away from content and on to users

Edit warring
PrinceOfCanada/Roux's block log shows four consecutive blocks within one month for edit warring and disruptive editing.

AN/I
At Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473:
 * Oh yes, it's that time again. He's been around here before. I tried posting at WQA, but he provided his usual wikilawyering, and ignored his incivility... This user is on some sort of crusade to make articles 'pretty' by removing whitespace.

Talk pages
Comments by PrinceOfCanada/Roux at various talk pages demonstrate dismissal, sarcasm, petulancies, and insult; the following is but a sampling:

edit summaries
A number of edit summaries across various articles and talk pages, between June and September 2008, demonstrate extremely incivil commentary:

Officiousness
Certain commentary has demonstrated a negative approach by PrinceOfCanada/Roux to anyone who does not immediately understand and/or questions his actions/statements, as well as a total resiliance to the possibility of error on his part:

Maintaining disputes
At a discussion at Talk:Monarchy of Barbados, PrinceOfCanada/Roux refuses to cooperate until an ultimatum is met:

A discussion took place across Talk:Monarchy of Canada, User talk:G2bambino, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino, in which PrinceOfCanada/Roux refused to believe that what he percieved to be an insult was not an insult:

Hypocrisy
Diffs above and below are just a sampling of instances wherein PrinceOfCanada/Roux demands to be treated with civility and have good faith assumed, while being incivil and assuming no good faith himself.

Also, certain commentary has demonstrated hypocricy on the part of PrinceOfCanada/Roux:

However, he commented on other's edits thusly:

Forum shopping/user targeting
PrinceOfCanada/Roux has persistently pointed to G2bambino in an effort to get sanction placed on that user, despite being consistently told that sanctionable offences have not taken place.

A Wikiquette alert that found only one incivil comment by G2bambino:
 * Wikiquette alerts/archive50

An incident report at AN/I that was dismissed:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473

A report at AN made by an admin with whom PrinceOfCanada/Roux had been in private contact on IRC (though he stated he did not request the report), and which failed to gain consensus for banning or sanction:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive172

An RfC/U on G2bambino, majoratively made up of the earlier AN report:
 * Requests for comment/G2bambino

A request for more input at the RfC/U, made 12 days after the RfC/U was opened:
 * Administrators' noticeboard

This came after explicit expressions from PrinceOfCanada/Roux of his desire to see G2bambino banned/gone from Wikipedia:


 * 17:17, 9 September 2008 - ...these aren't reasons for him to be thrown the hell off the project?
 * 07:57, 6 October 2008 - Do us all a favour and leave WP like you promised to.

There are also numerous cases of PrinceOfCanada/Roux using content disputes to make personal accusations and disparaging insinuations against G2bambino.

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:AGF
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
 * WP:EDIT WAR
 * WP:DISRUPT
 * WP:TE
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:FORUMSHOP

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Mediation Cabal

PrinceOfCanada/Roux made reconciliatory efforts in good faith:
 * 22:32, 18 September 2008 - I'm going to comment now, as I don't have anything else to say on the matter. I accept everything you have written above, and agree to your suggestions on how to handle future disagreements. G2bambino, please accept this in the honest spirit in which it is intended: I am sorry for anything I have said to you that has caused you distress or offence. Let's move on, shall we?

A scant two days later, however, PrinceOfCanada/Roux returns to previous habits:


 * 04:06, 20 September 2008 - Well, you 'simply think' that whitespace 'looks ugly', so don't disparage my opinion, ok? Thank you. Moving on...

And:


 * this in response to this

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
See responses by PrinceOfCanada/Roux to the above highlighted attempts to notify him of his behaviour.

As recently as 30 October, PrinceOfCanada/Roux continues with bad faith and incivil commentary:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * --G2bambino (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Response
Taking the time to go through and explain each of G2's carefully edited quotes is simply not worth the stress and bother. To those who are judging my behaviour based solely on G2's misquoting and lack of context, I urge you to please read the diffs and judge for yourselves what was actually going on. Have I acted perfectly? No. Have I been beset by a known tendentious editor who argues people into the ground until they give up? Yes. Am I trying to contribute positively to multiple areas of the project, and am I trying to learn from my mistakes? Yes and yes.

Per the AN thread, I have voluntarily placed myself under the following restrictions. I have also removed myself from all royalty and commonwealth-related articles, because no matter how much I love them it is no longer worth dealing with the insane behaviour of G2bambino anytime any sort of dispute comes up. Thanks for ruining the reason I came to WP in the first place.


 * The restrictions are to last for 2 months, ending on 1 Jan 2009, enforced by escalating blocks which will also reset the six month limit.
 * 1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed.
 * Required to stick solely to guidelines and gain consensus for any unique interpretations of existing guidelines and/or implementation of new ones, again to be broadly construed.
 * Required to follow Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by any uninvolved administrator.
 * On article talk pages is required to stick solely to content.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) [  roux  ] [ x ] 17:39, 1 November 2008 (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.}

Outside view by GoodDay
IMO, alot of the frustrations betwee G2bambino & Roux stems from passions & personality conflicts. Both editors should take a 1-month Wikibreak from the Commonwealth monarchies related articles.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I endorse. I think Roux is a good contributor and I would hate to see him permanently lost to us just because he can't restrain his argumentative side. Deb (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with part of DBD's statement but it is far too rude for me to endorse! :) --Cameron* 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by DBD
I have found the targeted user, PrinceofCanada, to be quite a sensible contributor, and a decent and personable chap. That he is the subject of this RfC without his opposite number G2 is shocking. The two may have disagreements, but that is the two of them. Just if a user is not one for bureaucracy or a timid attitude does not mean he ought to be victimised. Just end this bollocks and allow a good 'paedian and a good man his freedom of editing.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) DBD 17:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Hear, hear. &mdash; neuro(talk) 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Mayalld (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Response Yes but note that there is also an RfC on G2Bambino, running more or less concurrently. Sticky Parkin 17:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Bwilkins
I first became aware of Prince of Canada during a WP:WQA incident. I found his interactions a bit harsh, but originally "non-hazardous". One morning (Oct 4/08) while patrolling newbie's changes, I came across hundreds of Huggle edits from PrinceOfCanada-HG. I investigated about 20 of them, and found almost all of them to be glaringly WRONG: horrible treatment of other new editors, wrong templates about vandalism, being absolutely WP:BITEy - I was appalled. I left a polite message about the proper use of tools on his page, and recieved a rather significant series of snotty comments back. My talk page still contains some of the exchange, and the discussion with Turkish Flame directly above his comments are related to one of his worst treaments of a new editor of those 20 that I investigated (I was able to solve the issue with a polite 2 exchange discussion with the editor). It eventually led to me mentioning the issues at WP:ANI. In many ways, I am glad that the G2 and PrinceofCanada RFC's are separate - I know that G2 has his own issues, but from what I have seen, PrinceOfCanada has had detrimental effects on more users overall, on more articles, has driven away more new editors, and all in all been more destructive than G2 has ever been (or possibly could ever be). I agree with signficant sanctions against Roux/PrinceOfCanada not only regarding his behavior with G2, but with the use of any tools (such as Huggle) as well. I can only provide a few diffs, but the altercation Roux/PoC had with Turkish Flame is very indicative of all the problems I found that morning. (BMW aka Bwilkins)
 * Multiple warnings to a user by PoC/Roux without actually explaining the problem]
 * My Polite warning to stop
 * my note on AIV after Roux filed ANI against Turkish Flame
 * My reply to PoC/Roux after his snotty reply and another

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  -t  BMW  c-  20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) —  Ed   17   (talk)  — 15:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside(as much as I can muster) View by Gavin Scott
First off, I agree that PoC/Roux is great at editing wikipedia- if he was the only person on it he would be great! However, there are other editors and where there are too many chefs- toes get trodden on. Roux does not react well when he feels someone is infringing on his space, he attacks others of not Assuming Good Faith (which paradoxically is a breach of AGF) when he himself suspects everyone of being out to get him. Regularly he assumes other people are uncivil or non-constructive purely because they have a different opinion from him. However, the worse offence is even when multiple users (and admins) tell him that he has all or part of the blame in a dispute he refuses to accept it. He denies with all conviction he can muster that he has ever done anything wrong and insists he is the victim- over and over we have seen him do this- isn't it just time for him to leave start taking responsibility for his postings and fill the chip in his shoulder?

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Gavin (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --G2bambino (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  06:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Mayalld
As with G2Bambino, I encountered this user whilst trying to mediate a dispute between them.

In the early stages of that dispute, I found Roux/PofC to be more than a little prone to flying off the handle, but as the days went on, it became apparent that he was genuinely seeking to find a resolution.

After the MEDCAB process ended, and in reviewing what had gone right and what had gone wrong, I was struck that whilst both parties could be guilty of poor behaviour, that from Roux/PofC appeared to be impetuous, and due to a genuine feeling of being badly done by, whilst that from G2Bambino appeared more calculating.

It appears to me that this RFC is a tit-for-tat response to the RFC on G2Bambino.

Roux clearly needs some guidance, but has shown a willingness to accept that guidance, and it would be wrong to characterise the problems here as being in any way similar to the problems that G2Bambino presents.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Mayalld (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Double Blue  (Talk) 15:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) DBD 01:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Lawe
Two important things to know about Roux:
 * Roux removed a comment I made which was negative towards G2bambino. He put personal feelings completely aside. He helped me avoid an escalation of a dispute by with G2bambino, because it was the right thing to do - and it was. (see ). Well done Roux!
 * I did not ask for one, but Roux apologised to me for being "incredibly rude". Infact, the original comment was quite mild, but he apologised anyway (see ). G2bambino has used this comment in the above RfC. Ridiculous given the apology and that I was not even offended! How many other comments in the above list has Roux fully apologised for? Probably most.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Lawe (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Double Blue  (Talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) DBD 01:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Fut.Perf.
I stopped reading through the evidence section after the first few collapsed sections. This is the typical heap-on-random-links-in-hopes-some-will-stick RfC that we don't need. Few if any of the alleged instances of "incivility" even remotely approach what would be sanctionable. Seriously now, edit summaries like "The rewrite is EXTREMELY POV. Please provide citations." or "Again: SHE SAYS SHE IS ILLEGITIMATE. Therefore, not libel. Don't do this again." are listed here as instances of "extremely incivil commentary"?? Get real, mate.

Unfortunately, these kinds of tactics in filing RfCs are encountered all too often. If I had become aware of this one sooner after its filing, I would have warned the complainant to amend his evidence list, and blocked him if he didn't comply. It's high time we start doing this, systematically. Irresponsible RfCs based on crap evidence are a serious problem of user harassment.

This is not to say the subject of these complaints may not be also at fault; quite possibly they are. But after reading through the evidence (to the extent I could bear), I still don't know more about his offenses than I did before.


 * Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Mayalld (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) DBD 01:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Xavexgoem (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

View by NuclearWarfare
This RfC has been just an additional outlet for User:G2bambino to harass Roux, and it has worked, because it has caused Roux to leave the project.


 * Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) -  NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  22:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)   Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Mayalld (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  RockManQ  (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) DBD 00:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) While I have seen people use the threat of leaving or the act of leaving as a tool to convince people to believe in their point, Roux's departure does not look like an attempt to gain attention. He did not inform anybody of his departure aside from here, and I did not find out until I went to his talk page to respond to a comment he had made on mine. As stated by NuclearWarfare, this RfC, in addition to G2B's comments on the ANB, lead me to the conclusion that G2B is simply hounding Roux at this point.  D ARTH P ANDA duel 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC) - He ain't coming back, either.

Summary
Restrictions were imposed. G2bambino blocked; thereby resolving the dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.