Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roux

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: 13:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• Roux (talk · contribs · logs)

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

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 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

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

Edit warring

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

Incivil/bad faith commentary

AN/I

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

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#Image, PrinceOfCanada/Roux refuses to cooperate until an ultimatum is met:

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:

Hypocricy

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:

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive50#User:G2bambino

An incident report at AN/I that was dismissed:

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

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:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive172#Aggressive tendentious edit warrior - community ban/sanction proposal

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC/U on G2bambino

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

• 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:

• [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:

• 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}

1. --G2bambino (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
2. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

It's going to take a while to respond to this, so this is a placeholder comment for now.

It's worth noting a few quick things. I will be responding in more detail:

1. G2bambino essentially stated explicitly that this RfC/U was a threat, after I finally got sick of it here. (Just keep hitting 'next edit' for the rest of the diffs). This collection of 'evidence' had been sitting around in his sandbox since approximately 1/2 hour before he filed a MedCab relating to a dispute we were having. Hardly evidence of trying to resolve anything in good faith, particularly since he agreed to remove it (and did, here, only to put it back as soon as I opened the RFC/U on his behaviour. The mediator for that MedCab, Mayalld summed up his views on G2's behaviour during and after that case here.
2. Almost every diff he has posted is taken out of context, with selectively edited quotes guaranteed to paint me in the worst possible light. I urge everyone to read the diffs and not go solely on his quotes--you'll see what I mean.

I am going to have to go through everything in detail, which is going to take a while. [ roux ] [x] 19:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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.}

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)

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. — neuro^(talk) 19:21, 30 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. (BMW aka Bwilkins)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -t BMW c- 20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by

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.