Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roux

< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
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 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: 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC).

Formerly PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

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

Statement of the dispute

edit

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.

Though the poor behaviour is evident predominantly in disputes with G2bambino, others have been subject to the same at other times. A joint RfC for both G2bambino and PrinceOfCanada/Roux was suggested, and supported by both other users and G2bambino, however, this idea was rejected by PrinceOfCanada/Roux, who then filed an RfC/U on G2bambino alone. This RfC/U, then, may be read in conjunction with the other, though not in totality.

Desired outcome

edit

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

edit

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

edit

Edit warring

edit

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

Incivil/bad faith commentary

edit
AN/I
edit

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#User:G2bambino:

  • [1] 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
edit

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

edit summaries
edit

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

Officiousness

edit

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

edit

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

A discussion began between G2bambino and PrinceOfCanada/Roux after an image whose placement was a focus of a dispute was removed by G2bambino in order to cease edit warring over it. G2bambino asks:
  • G2: [109] ...though I'd rather see it in the article, where I want to place it obviously disturbs you, and you won't explain why, so taking it out is a sacrifice I'm willing to make in order to avoid problems. You, however, seem to desire continued disruption. Will you, or will you not, be a cooperative element of resolving this?
    • PoC responds: [110] I will be a cooperative element when you do these things. I have made my position clear. This discussion is over.
    • PoC responds: [111] I made it clear that I will not cooperate with you unless and until you acknowledge your hypocrisy, you acknowledge and apologize for your lies, half-truths, and general incivility. So you have only yourself to blame if I am not cooperating with you.

A discussion took place across Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Personal union, User talk:G2bambino#1RR, 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:

At the end of a dispute, G2bambino stated:
  • G2: [112] Though there's equally no reason the exact same wording should be used everywhere, yes, the dispute is over. I simply hoped we were all smart enough to be able to write the same thing without using the same words. I've removed the excess as noted by both Roux and myself.
    • PoC responds: [113] Insults, now? Great.
  • [114] I'm sorry you percieve insult in my commentary.
    • PoC responds: [115] You know you intended an insult, so don't be disingenuous.
  • G2: [116] No, I did not; please stop being presumptuous.
    • PoC responds: [117] You insulted me here and you know it...
  • G2: [118] I did not insult you.
    • PoC responds: [119] "I had hoped we'd all be smart enough" - implying you're the only one smart enough.
  • G2: [120] You presume that I am somehow not included in "we".
    • PoC responds: [121] I walked away due to your condescension there, and insults in a previous thread.
  • G2: [122] I explained to you (numerous times in one case) that there was no insult intended.
    • PoC responds: [123] Repeatedly insulting people and claiming that no insult was intended isn't really effective in making people believe that no insult was intended. You should think about that. This discussion is closed, as far as I'm concerned.

Hypocrisy

edit

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:

In editing at Monarchy of Canada, in an edit summary, I called PrinceOfCanada/Roux's previous edit "unsightly."
  • G2 [124] 22:44, 7 September 2008 - fix unsightly image moves

PrinceOfCanada/Roux, in a following edit summary, deemed this to be incivil.

  • PoC [125] 23:02, 7 September 2008 - I suggest you re-read WP:Civil. It applies to edit summaries.

At the talk page, Gavin Scott (talk · contribs) specifically asked what incivility PoC had been referring to.

  • GS [126] 01:36, 8 September 2008 - PoC, you wrote the following edit summary "I suggest you re-read WP:Civil. It applies to edit summaries." what were you referring to?

PrinceOfCanada/Roux confirmed that it had been my edit summary.

  • PoC [127] 01:50, 8 September 2008 - 18:44, 7 September 2008 G2bambino (Talk | contribs) (103,408 bytes) (fix unsightly image moves) (undo)
In editing at Monarchy of Canada, in an edit summary, I called PrinceOfCanada/Roux's previous edit "unsightly."
  • G2 [128] 12:31, 8 September 2008 - fix unsightly image moves

PrinceOfCanada/Roux, in a following edit summary, deemed this to be incivil.

  • PoC [129] 16:15, 8 September 2008 - Be civil in edit summaries. Also stop until you learn how formatting works.

And later:

  • PoC [130] 21:07, 9 September 2008 - Indeed, the lack of civility began when he started using words like 'hideous' to describe my functional edits.

However, he commented on other's edits thusly:

  • [131] 22:42, 3 July 2008 - That sentence is a mess, though.
  • [132] 02:38, 4 July 2008 ‎- because the formatting looked ugly with the infobox going over the dividing line.
  • [133] 03:12, 4 July 2008 - It's just ugly, that's all.
  • [134] 04:12, 19 August 2008 - If we must, let's make it less ugly, shall we?

Forum shopping/user targeting

edit

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:

An incident report at AN/I that was dismissed:

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:

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

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

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

  • [135] 17:17, 9 September 2008 - ...these aren't reasons for him to be thrown the hell off the project?
  • [136] 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

edit

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

edit

PrinceOfCanada/Roux made reconciliatory efforts in good faith:

  • [137] 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:

  • [138] 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:

Suggested joint RfC
edit

User:Hersfold suggested a joint RfC between PrinceOfCanada/Roux and G2bambino

  • [139] I'd encourage you to go up the ladder a bit and open a joint RfC on this issue, as well as both of your conducts in these conflicts. This will invite other, uninvolved editors to take a look at the situation, and give you both some feedback and suggestions on what to do. I would highly encourage you both be open to this, and take any feedback given to you to heart. What advice you receive will likely be useful in other fields as well, where you're not both involved but are working in other areas. Even if this doesn't prove to be the most successful course of action (although hopefully it will be), it will act as a stepping stone to some of the more binding levels of dispute resolution, such as the Mediation Committee, and as the absolute last resort, ArbCom. I'm hoping both of you are open to this course of action, as allowing this dispute to continue will not help matters. How does this sound to both of you? PoC, I know you can't reply here at the moment, but if you'd leave a note on your talk page, that would be great.
    • PoC responds: [140] I will not enter into a join RfC with G2; the issue is his appalling treatment of multiple users, not just me.
An offer to amend his ways
edit

User:G2bambino offered a chance for PrinceOfCanada/Roux to demonstrate a change in behaviour:

  • [141] And, far from being any threat, I'm just not in a rush and have been giving you time to demonstrate whether or not [the RfC/U] need be filed at all. Though I'm very close to going ahead with it, I can still be persuaded to change my mind.
    • PoC responds: [142] Do it or delete it. Pick one, else I will ask an uninvolved admin to delete it as an attack page.
Users advising PrinceOfCanada/Roux about his behaviour
edit

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

edit

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:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of blue-eyed soul artists
  • [183] 12:47, 30 October 2008 - How about you go re-read WP:AGF?
  • [184] 13:22, 30 October 2008 - What part of me acknowledging my mistake are you not getting? Try treating people just a wee bit nicer, okay?
  • [185] 13:46, 30 October 2008 - Remorse? For making a mistake? You have got to be joking. It's a shame you don't have the good grace to be polite to someone who has made and acknowledged a freaking mistake.
Talk:Monarchy of Canada
  • [186] 22:05, 26 October 2008 - You know you intended an insult, so don't be disingenuous. Just abide by what you agreed to, it's not difficult. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over; you're welcome to get the last word in if you like.
  • [187] 20:50, 28 October 2008 - This argument is over, you're free to get the last word in if it's important to you.
  • [188] 21:06, 28 October 2008 - Go away and do something that's productive to the project and stop wasting my time.
  • [189] 17:53, 29 October 2008 - In short, please get over it. You're wrong, your POV is wrong, your continued attempts to push it will be met with complete opposition in complete accordance with NPOV. Stop wasting all of our time.
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino
  • [190] 19:46, 28 October 2008 - Your usual failure to accept what other people say is both disappointing and unsurprising.
  • [191] 20:05, 28 October 2008 - Oh my good gravy. Enough of this ridiculous semanticising. Go do something productive.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

edit

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. --G2bambino (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

edit

Response

edit

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)[reply]

Outside view

edit

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

edit

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

Outside view by DBD

edit

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)[reply]
  2. Hear, hear. — neuro(talk) 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mayalld (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Outside view by Bwilkins

edit

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)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -t BMW c- 20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Ed 17 (talk)— 15:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside(as much as I can muster) View by Gavin Scott

edit

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)[reply]
  2. --G2bambino (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 06:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Mayalld

edit

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)[reply]
  2. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DBD 01:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Lawe

edit

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 [192]). 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 [193]). 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)[reply]
  2. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DBD 01:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Fut.Perf.

edit

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)[reply]
  2. Mayalld (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DBD 01:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by NuclearWarfare

edit

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 meMy work 22:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mayalld (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RockManQ (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DBD 00:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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. DARTH PANDAduel 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC) - He ain't coming back, either.[reply]

Summary

edit

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

Discussion

edit

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Roux&oldid=1142569547"