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: 19:10, 17 July 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.
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. |
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:
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.
The key disruptive traits in Roux's behaviour can be summarised as follows:
PrinceOfCanada/Roux's block log shows four consecutive blocks within one month for edit warring and disruptive editing.
At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#User:G2bambino:
Comments by PrinceOfCanada/Roux at various talk pages demonstrate dismissal, sarcasm, petulancies, and insult; the following is but a sampling:
Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom |
---|
During a dispute on the placement of images in article space,
here:
|
Talk:Monarchy of Canada |
---|
During disputes on image placement in article space, here, and here: |
Talk:Commonwealth realm |
---|
During a dispute on the use of the term "personal union",
here,
here,
here, and
here
|
Talk:Governor General of India |
---|
During a dispute about the use of the term "Indian monarch",
here:
|
Talk:Prince Henry of Wales |
---|
During a dispute about image placement in article space,
here:
|
Template talk:British Royal Family |
---|
During a dispute about the appearance of the template,
here:
|
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino |
---|
During a dispute about whether or not there was a consensus at Template talk:British Royal Family, here: |
User talk:PrinceOfCanada |
---|
During a dispute about image placement in article space,
here, and
here:
|
User talk:Gavin Scott |
---|
During a dispute about talk page content,
here,
During a dispute about PrinceOfCanada/Roux's behaviour, here:
|
User talk:G2bambino |
---|
During a dispute about G2bambino's behaviour,
here:
During a dispute about a revert, here: |
User talk:Fr33kman |
---|
During a dispute about third opinion,
here:
|
User talk:Lawe |
---|
During a dispute about G2bambino's behaviour,
here:
|
User talk:Pyl |
---|
During a dispute about sock puppetry,
here:
|
User talk:Proteus |
---|
During a dispute about precedence in the Royal Family,
here and
here:
|
A number of edit summaries across various articles and talk pages, between June and September 2008, demonstrate extremely incivil commentary:
Edit summaries |
---|
|
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:
Talk:Order of Canada |
---|
G2bambino
started a discussion about an edit PrinceOfCanada/Roux had made to
Order of Canada.
|
User talk:PrinceOfCanada |
---|
G2bambino
contacted PrinceOfCanada/Roux regarding edits he made to
Monarchy of Canada. However, he did not automatically take PrinceOfCanada/Roux's statements as the end of the issue:
Thereafter PrinceOfCanada became irritated, stating:
Then:
Then:
|
Other examples |
---|
|
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:
|
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:
|
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."
PrinceOfCanada/Roux, in a following edit summary, deemed this to be incivil. At the talk page, Gavin Scott ( talk · contribs) specifically asked what incivility PoC had been referring to.
PrinceOfCanada/Roux confirmed that it had been my edit summary.
|
In editing at
Monarchy of Canada, in an edit summary, I called PrinceOfCanada/Roux's previous edit "unsightly."
PrinceOfCanada/Roux, in a following edit summary, deemed this to be incivil.
And later:
|
However, he commented on other's edits thusly:
|
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:
There are also numerous cases of PrinceOfCanada/Roux using content disputes to make personal accusations and disparaging insinuations against G2bambino.
PrinceOfCanada/Roux made reconciliatory efforts in good faith:
A scant two days later, however, PrinceOfCanada/Roux returns to previous habits:
And:
User:Hersfold suggested a joint RfC between PrinceOfCanada/Roux and G2bambino
|
User:G2bambino offered a chance for PrinceOfCanada/Roux to demonstrate a change in behaviour:
|
User:Police,Mad,Jack |
---|
|
User:Gavin Scott |
---|
|
User:WilyD |
---|
|
User:the ed17 |
---|
|
User:G2bambino |
---|
|
User:JzG |
---|
|
User:Cameron |
---|
|
User:DoubleBlue |
---|
|
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 |
---|
|
Talk:Monarchy of Canada |
---|
|
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino |
---|
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.
Users who endorse this summary:
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.}
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:
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:
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
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:
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:
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:
Two important things to know about Roux:
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
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.
Restrictions were imposed. G2bambino blocked; thereby resolving the dispute. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
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.
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: 19:10, 17 July 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.
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. |
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:
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.
The key disruptive traits in Roux's behaviour can be summarised as follows:
PrinceOfCanada/Roux's block log shows four consecutive blocks within one month for edit warring and disruptive editing.
At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#User:G2bambino:
Comments by PrinceOfCanada/Roux at various talk pages demonstrate dismissal, sarcasm, petulancies, and insult; the following is but a sampling:
Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom |
---|
During a dispute on the placement of images in article space,
here:
|
Talk:Monarchy of Canada |
---|
During disputes on image placement in article space, here, and here: |
Talk:Commonwealth realm |
---|
During a dispute on the use of the term "personal union",
here,
here,
here, and
here
|
Talk:Governor General of India |
---|
During a dispute about the use of the term "Indian monarch",
here:
|
Talk:Prince Henry of Wales |
---|
During a dispute about image placement in article space,
here:
|
Template talk:British Royal Family |
---|
During a dispute about the appearance of the template,
here:
|
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino |
---|
During a dispute about whether or not there was a consensus at Template talk:British Royal Family, here: |
User talk:PrinceOfCanada |
---|
During a dispute about image placement in article space,
here, and
here:
|
User talk:Gavin Scott |
---|
During a dispute about talk page content,
here,
During a dispute about PrinceOfCanada/Roux's behaviour, here:
|
User talk:G2bambino |
---|
During a dispute about G2bambino's behaviour,
here:
During a dispute about a revert, here: |
User talk:Fr33kman |
---|
During a dispute about third opinion,
here:
|
User talk:Lawe |
---|
During a dispute about G2bambino's behaviour,
here:
|
User talk:Pyl |
---|
During a dispute about sock puppetry,
here:
|
User talk:Proteus |
---|
During a dispute about precedence in the Royal Family,
here and
here:
|
A number of edit summaries across various articles and talk pages, between June and September 2008, demonstrate extremely incivil commentary:
Edit summaries |
---|
|
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:
Talk:Order of Canada |
---|
G2bambino
started a discussion about an edit PrinceOfCanada/Roux had made to
Order of Canada.
|
User talk:PrinceOfCanada |
---|
G2bambino
contacted PrinceOfCanada/Roux regarding edits he made to
Monarchy of Canada. However, he did not automatically take PrinceOfCanada/Roux's statements as the end of the issue:
Thereafter PrinceOfCanada became irritated, stating:
Then:
Then:
|
Other examples |
---|
|
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:
|
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:
|
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."
PrinceOfCanada/Roux, in a following edit summary, deemed this to be incivil. At the talk page, Gavin Scott ( talk · contribs) specifically asked what incivility PoC had been referring to.
PrinceOfCanada/Roux confirmed that it had been my edit summary.
|
In editing at
Monarchy of Canada, in an edit summary, I called PrinceOfCanada/Roux's previous edit "unsightly."
PrinceOfCanada/Roux, in a following edit summary, deemed this to be incivil.
And later:
|
However, he commented on other's edits thusly:
|
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:
There are also numerous cases of PrinceOfCanada/Roux using content disputes to make personal accusations and disparaging insinuations against G2bambino.
PrinceOfCanada/Roux made reconciliatory efforts in good faith:
A scant two days later, however, PrinceOfCanada/Roux returns to previous habits:
And:
User:Hersfold suggested a joint RfC between PrinceOfCanada/Roux and G2bambino
|
User:G2bambino offered a chance for PrinceOfCanada/Roux to demonstrate a change in behaviour:
|
User:Police,Mad,Jack |
---|
|
User:Gavin Scott |
---|
|
User:WilyD |
---|
|
User:the ed17 |
---|
|
User:G2bambino |
---|
|
User:JzG |
---|
|
User:Cameron |
---|
|
User:DoubleBlue |
---|
|
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 |
---|
|
Talk:Monarchy of Canada |
---|
|
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino |
---|
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.
Users who endorse this summary:
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.}
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:
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:
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
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:
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:
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:
Two important things to know about Roux:
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
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.
Restrictions were imposed. G2bambino blocked; thereby resolving the dispute. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
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.