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 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: {{mono|{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)}}.

----

{{user3|Roux}}

Formerly {{Usercheck|PrinceOfCanada}}

----

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.

style="width:100%;text-align: left; font-size:100%; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiptoety&diff=243576990&oldid=243571178 was suggested], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=244138537&oldid=244138365 supported] by both other users [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=244140963&oldid=244138537 and G2bambino], however, this idea [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=prev&oldid=243578786 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248467325&oldid=248465382 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Civility_restrictions 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Roux 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:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237353405&oldid=237351001] 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:

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
During a dispute on the placement of images in article space, here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=237164319&oldid=237163928] This is the point at which adults would usually issue an apology for throwing accusations around, and perhaps even eat a little crow. I won't be holding my breath. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=237173495&oldid=237173030] What is wrong with you? I ask that as a serious question... What, honestly, is wrong with you? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=239680027&oldid=239674166] Errr.. well thanks for that pile of judgement there... I don't believe I was involved in any such discussions; I am fairly certain they were all done and dusted long before I was here. So uh.. thanks for that, too.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

During a dispute on the placement of images in article space, here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=237164319&oldid=237163928] This is the point at which adults would usually issue an apology for throwing accusations around, and perhaps even eat a little crow. I won't be holding my breath.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=237173495&oldid=237173030] What is wrong with you? I ask that as a serious question... What, honestly, is wrong with you?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=239680027&oldid=239674166] Errr.. well thanks for that pile of judgement there... I don't believe I was involved in any such discussions; I am fairly certain they were all done and dusted long before I was here. So uh.. thanks for that, too.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Talk:Monarchy of Canada
During disputes on image placement in article space, here, and here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=236966723&oldid=236962902] I'm really not sure what your problem is... One more personal attack, by the way.. go on. Make one more. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=240301864] Sarcastic, yes. Other than that, kindly do not put words in my mouth or ascribe motivations to me that are not true. Ok? Good. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=240304548] Also, don't patronize me. Ok? Good. (more below)

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Talk:Monarchy of Canada

During disputes on image placement in article space, here, and here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=236966723&oldid=236962902] I'm really not sure what your problem is... One more personal attack, by the way.. go on. Make one more.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=240301864] Sarcastic, yes. Other than that, kindly do not put words in my mouth or ascribe motivations to me that are not true. Ok? Good.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=240304548] Also, don't patronize me. Ok? Good.
(more below)

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Talk:Commonwealth realm
During a dispute on the use of the term "personal union", here, here, here, and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243535266] As has been explained several times to G2--he doesn't like to listen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243368443] sigh, I really had hoped you would do better than simply ignoring--again--everything I've said. Oh well, I shouldn't be surprised. When you engage in good faith by actually responding to direct points I've made and questions I've asked, I will then feel some sort of reason to assume a modicum of good faith on your part and engage you accordingly. Since you won't, well... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243349127] True. They were completely refuted before, they have been refuted again. Glad that we're in agreement, so I'll be restoring the page now. [Evidently sarcasm] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243343036] Now, now, let's quote accurately, shall we? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243084080] Cute, but no... there's really not much point in me attempting to argue any further with someone who 1) has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith, 2) sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "I don't hear you!," 3) Uses "because I say so" as the basis of all his arguments. Besides, even if I were 'unable to attack the issues' (re-read the page, you'll see how ridiculous that assertion is) and simply attacked my opponent instead (which I haven't done; facts are not attacks), it would be a page right out of your book. So you really wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about it, now would you? Bye bye. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243082441] I have wasted more than enough time giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are not the sole arbiter of truth, and rather more on point, you are distinctly in the minority with your beliefs and your POV-pushing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243055196] Your continued dismissal of sources as irrelevant solely because you don't agree with them is proof you are not acting in good faith. Your selective quoting of sources in the article, ignoring the conclusions they made, is proof you are not acting in good faith. Your behaviour here, in keeping with your standard behaviour when involved in disputes, is reprehensible and completely against the policies and guidelines you love to quote at people. Your continued insistence on dismissing everything and everyone that disagrees with you is proof that you are acting in bad faith. Your repeated insults are proof that you are acting in bad faith. I trust that is perfectly clear, and I hope that somehow, someday, you will look at how your actions appear and how they affect others, and adjust your treatment of other people accordingly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243047301] Oh, goody. We're at the part of the argument where G2bambino becomes insulting. Are you going to say I'm having imaginary conversations, next? Does this need to go to a MedCab that you'll ignore when you don't get the answer you want as well? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=243540016&oldid=243537875] I did, but someone who prefers to hurl insults at me--while, amusingly, pretending to be perfectly behaved to you--didn't like it. Aw. ...unlike G2's version which clearly implies the current thinking is wrong. I'm sure that implication has nothing to do with his POV. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243041779] Sorry. As GoodDay has already said, you're outnumbered here. Give in gracefully, won't you? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243038399] Do stop implying things I haven't said, will you? Thank you ever so much... and yes, you're going to say it's irrelevant, your standard response for 'doesn't say what I want'... consensus is wildly against you, just give it up already. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243035314] Just saw your tags. Cute! Accuse me of original research, and now of violating NPOV. Is there nothing you won't do to prevent admitting that you're wrong? What are you going to accuse me of next, I wonder?

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Talk:Commonwealth realm

During a dispute on the use of the term "personal union", here, here, here, and here

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243535266] As has been explained several times to G2--he doesn't like to listen
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243368443] *sigh*, I really had hoped you would do better than simply ignoring--again--everything I've said. Oh well, I shouldn't be surprised. When you engage in good faith by actually responding to direct points I've made and questions I've asked, I will then feel some sort of reason to assume a modicum of good faith on your part and engage you accordingly. Since you won't, well...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243349127] True. They were completely refuted before, they have been refuted again. Glad that we're in agreement, so I'll be restoring the page now. [Evidently sarcasm]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243343036] Now, now, let's quote accurately, shall we?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243084080] Cute, but no... there's really not much point in me attempting to argue any further with someone who 1) has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith, 2) sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "I don't hear you!," 3) Uses "because I say so" as the basis of all his arguments. Besides, even if I were 'unable to attack the issues' (re-read the page, you'll see how ridiculous that assertion is) and simply attacked my opponent instead (which I haven't done; facts are not attacks), it would be a page right out of your book. So you really wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about it, now would you? Bye bye.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243082441] I have wasted more than enough time giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are not the sole arbiter of truth, and rather more on point, you are distinctly in the minority with your beliefs and your POV-pushing.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243055196] Your continued dismissal of sources as irrelevant solely because you don't agree with them is proof you are not acting in good faith. Your selective quoting of sources in the article, ignoring the conclusions they made, is proof you are not acting in good faith. Your behaviour here, in keeping with your standard behaviour when involved in disputes, is reprehensible and completely against the policies and guidelines you love to quote at people. Your continued insistence on dismissing everything and everyone that disagrees with you is proof that you are acting in bad faith. Your repeated insults are proof that you are acting in bad faith. I trust that is perfectly clear, and I hope that somehow, someday, you will look at how your actions appear and how they affect others, and adjust your treatment of other people accordingly.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243047301] Oh, goody. We're at the part of the argument where G2bambino becomes insulting. Are you going to say I'm having imaginary conversations, next? Does this need to go to a MedCab that you'll ignore when you don't get the answer you want as well?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=243540016&oldid=243537875] I did, but someone who prefers to hurl insults at me--while, amusingly, pretending to be perfectly behaved to you--didn't like it. Aw. ...unlike G2's version which clearly implies the current thinking is wrong. I'm sure that implication has nothing to do with his POV.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243041779] Sorry. As GoodDay has already said, you're outnumbered here. Give in gracefully, won't you?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243038399] Do stop implying things I haven't said, will you? Thank you ever so much... and yes, you're going to say it's irrelevant, your standard response for 'doesn't say what I want'... consensus is wildly against you, just give it up already.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243035314] Just saw your tags. Cute! Accuse me of original research, and now of violating NPOV. Is there nothing you won't do to prevent admitting that you're wrong? What are you going to accuse me of next, I wonder?

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Talk:Governor General of India
During a dispute about the use of the term "Indian monarch", here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Governor-General_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=243380894] Your lack of ability to recognize the reality of how you treat people is not my problem.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Talk:Governor General of India

During a dispute about the use of the term "Indian monarch", here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Governor-General_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=243380894] Your lack of ability to recognize the reality of how you treat people is not my problem.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Talk:Prince Henry of Wales
During a dispute about image placement in article space, here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Henry_of_Wales&diff=245943784&oldid=245934928] I really am sick to death of arguing ridiculous semantics with you. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Henry_of_Wales&diff=245946903&oldid=245946074] So.. yeah, sorry... And that really is quite enough of your pedantry for me today. Cheers. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Henry_of_Wales&diff=246361333&oldid=246358378] Oh terribly sorry, he hasn't contributed since a short time after you posted your reply. Whatever. And I am so very sorry that I missed an edit. CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME?

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Talk:Prince Henry of Wales

During a dispute about image placement in article space, here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Henry_of_Wales&diff=245943784&oldid=245934928] I really am sick to death of arguing ridiculous semantics with you.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Henry_of_Wales&diff=245946903&oldid=245946074] So.. yeah, sorry... And that really is quite enough of your pedantry for me today. Cheers.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Henry_of_Wales&diff=246361333&oldid=246358378] Oh terribly sorry, he hasn't contributed since a short time after you posted your reply. Whatever. And I am so very sorry that I missed an edit. CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME?

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Template talk:British Royal Family
During a dispute about the appearance of the template, here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:British_Royal_Family&diff=245186573&oldid=245183381] I suggest you find new vocabulary; 'vile' isn't appropriate... Do you have a substantive objection other than "I don't like it"?

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Template talk:British Royal Family

During a dispute about the appearance of the template, here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:British_Royal_Family&diff=245186573&oldid=245183381] I suggest you find new vocabulary; 'vile' isn't appropriate... Do you have a substantive objection other than "I don't like it"?

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino
During a dispute about whether or not there was a consensus at Template talk:British Royal Family, here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&diff=248255137&oldid=248253635] I notice you don't insult Mayalld this way. Interesting. Enough wikilawyering, okay? (more below)

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino

During a dispute about whether or not there was a consensus at Template talk:British Royal Family, here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&diff=248255137&oldid=248253635] I notice you don't insult Mayalld this way. Interesting. Enough wikilawyering, okay?
(more below)

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User talk:PrinceOfCanada
During a dispute about image placement in article space, here, and here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236988287&oldid=236985252] As I have explained multiple times (and you keep ignoring, which makes it impossible to AGF, which I suspect you are well aware of)... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237086074&oldid=237056562] You do not comprehend that your edits only work on your computer. Despite you SAYING SO BEFORE. WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237108343&oldid=237107320] I wish to make this clear: STOP. POSTING. HERE. Your abuse is not welcome, your dishonesty is not welcome, you are not welcome. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238672485&oldid=238672026] You really should learn the history of what's going on before judging me... comments like "I am already sick of you" and "you should be ashamed" are not terribly civil. Or is it different when you say them? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237821013&oldid=237814021] Poor little G2bambino, hoist by his own petard. Waah. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237822842&oldid=237821013] And look, more lies on his talk page. Really, what's the point? 'Never meant to inflame'. As if.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User talk:PrinceOfCanada

During a dispute about image placement in article space, here, and here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236988287&oldid=236985252] As I have explained multiple times (and you keep ignoring, which makes it impossible to AGF, which I suspect you are well aware of)...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237086074&oldid=237056562] You do not comprehend that your edits only work on your computer. Despite you SAYING SO BEFORE. WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237108343&oldid=237107320] I wish to make this clear: STOP. POSTING. HERE. Your abuse is not welcome, your dishonesty is not welcome, you are not welcome.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238672485&oldid=238672026] You really should learn the history of what's going on before judging me... comments like "I am already sick of you" and "you should be ashamed" are not terribly civil. Or is it different when you say them?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237821013&oldid=237814021] Poor little G2bambino, hoist by his own petard. Waah.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237822842&oldid=237821013] And look, more lies on his talk page. Really, what's the point? 'Never meant to inflame'. As if.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User talk:Gavin Scott
During a dispute about talk page content, here, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230663485&oldid=230597355] But I'm done with you. You have a bug up your butt, and I really have no interest in indulging it any further. Nice touch, by the way, on my talk page; using 'Ms. Windsor' after you had been factually corrected otherwise. Childish. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230704020&oldid=230698580] English apparently isn't your strong suit, so I'll try to keep this simple... Grow up. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230707649&oldid=230706703] When you understand that, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt. Until then, yes, I will question your comprehension of the English language... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230711218&oldid=230709100] I would really suggest that you learn to comprehend basic written English better before you start hurling accusations around. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230733145&oldid=230723429] Clearly your apology was empty to begin with. Have a nice life. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230736985&oldid=230736829] Passive-aggressive, much? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230738719&oldid=230736985] I was going to assume good faith on your part. Your passive-aggressive edit summary and continued disingenuousness have thrown that out the window. Grow up. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230739971&oldid=230739815] I pretended you weren't until the evidence to the contrary became overwhelming. But I give up, you win. Are you happy now, kiddo? During a dispute about PrinceOfCanada/Roux's behaviour, here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=237322289&oldid=236462312] If you don't have anything constructive to say, stay the hell away from my talk page. And no, what you said was not constructive. You don't like me, fine. You and G2 can gloat together elsewhere. You are not welcome at my talk page, and any further edits you make there will be considered vandalism and abuse. I trust that I make myself crystal clear.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User talk:Gavin Scott

During a dispute about talk page content, here,

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230663485&oldid=230597355] But I'm done with you. You have a bug up your butt, and I really have no interest in indulging it any further. Nice touch, by the way, on my talk page; using 'Ms. Windsor' after you had been factually corrected otherwise. Childish.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230704020&oldid=230698580] English apparently isn't your strong suit, so I'll try to keep this simple... Grow up.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230707649&oldid=230706703] When you understand that, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt. Until then, yes, I will question your comprehension of the English language...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230711218&oldid=230709100] I would really suggest that you learn to comprehend basic written English better before you start hurling accusations around.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230733145&oldid=230723429] Clearly your apology was empty to begin with. Have a nice life.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230736985&oldid=230736829] Passive-aggressive, much?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230738719&oldid=230736985] I was going to assume good faith on your part. Your passive-aggressive edit summary and continued disingenuousness have thrown that out the window. Grow up.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=230739971&oldid=230739815] I pretended you weren't until the evidence to the contrary became overwhelming. But I give up, you win. Are you happy now, kiddo?

During a dispute about PrinceOfCanada/Roux's behaviour, here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=237322289&oldid=236462312] If you don't have anything constructive to say, stay the hell away from my talk page. And no, what you said was not constructive. You don't like me, fine. You and G2 can gloat together elsewhere. You are not welcome at my talk page, and any further edits you make there will be considered vandalism and abuse. I trust that I make myself crystal clear.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User talk:G2bambino
During a dispute about G2bambino's behaviour, here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=237135617&oldid=237099082] Seeing as the WQA has had no effect on your abusive behaviour, which would you prefer, an RfC/U or another trip on the ANI merry-go-round? During a dispute about a revert, here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247923098&oldid=247922426] There's nothing to add. I made a change, you reverted it. That counts as a revert. Bye. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247926762&oldid=247926130] I have addressed all your points. Bye now. (more below)

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User talk:G2bambino

During a dispute about G2bambino's behaviour, here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=237135617&oldid=237099082] Seeing as the WQA has had no effect on your abusive behaviour, which would you prefer, an RfC/U or another trip on the ANI merry-go-round?

During a dispute about a revert, here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247923098&oldid=247922426] There's nothing to add. I made a change, you reverted it. That counts as a revert. Bye.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247926762&oldid=247926130] I have addressed all your points. Bye now.
(more below)

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User talk:Fr33kman
During a dispute about third opinion, here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&diff=prev&oldid=243377789] We all know that the discussion is over only when you say it is, G2.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User talk:Fr33kman

During a dispute about third opinion, here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&diff=prev&oldid=243377789] We all know that the discussion is over only when you say it is, G2.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User talk:Lawe
During a dispute about G2bambino's behaviour, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawe&oldid=244082361#Hi_Lawe here]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawe&diff=prev&oldid=243288711] In response to: If someone has a problem with me, I'd like to feel they would come to my talk page to help me address the problem. :) --Cameron * 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC) PoC offers: Well yes, but talking with you is productive. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawe&diff=prev&oldid=243199639] G2 has pretty conclusively proven that there is no good faith to assume of him in that debate.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User talk:Lawe

During a dispute about G2bambino's behaviour, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawe&oldid=244082361#Hi_Lawe here]:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawe&diff=prev&oldid=243288711] In response to: If someone has a problem with me, I'd like to feel they would come to my talk page to help me address the problem. :) --Cameron * 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC) PoC offers: Well yes, but talking with you is productive.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawe&diff=prev&oldid=243199639] G2 has pretty conclusively proven that there is no good faith to assume of him in that debate.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User talk:Pyl
During a dispute about sock puppetry, here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pyl&diff=237759887&oldid=237746158] You have absolutely no reason to suspect I am a sock puppet of anyone. Please remove your baseless accusation immediately. (apology issued by User:Pyl [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238335051&oldid=238267486] I have requested to have the report withdrawn. Please accept my apology.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pyl&diff=238408216&oldid=237939405] You should have removed it at the moment I asked you to, as you had no basis whatsoever for accusing me of sockpuppetry. I suggest you take some time away from the article to cool down. Your agenda, whatever it is, is clouding your judgement.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User talk:Pyl

During a dispute about sock puppetry, here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pyl&diff=237759887&oldid=237746158] You have absolutely no reason to suspect I am a sock puppet of anyone. Please remove your baseless accusation immediately.
(apology issued by User:Pyl [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238335051&oldid=238267486] I have requested to have the report withdrawn. Please accept my apology.)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pyl&diff=238408216&oldid=237939405] You should have removed it at the moment I asked you to, as you had no basis whatsoever for accusing me of sockpuppetry. I suggest you take some time away from the article to cool down. Your agenda, whatever it is, is clouding your judgement.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User talk:Proteus
During a dispute about precedence in the Royal Family, here and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&oldid=233582263#Precedence here]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proteus&diff=prev&oldid=233541768] Stop being rude. I did read the talk page, and apart from your assertion that Burke's is dodgy, there's actually no citation supporting your version. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proteus&diff=prev&oldid=233545680] Please re-read WP:Civil. Thanks. Stop being so antagonistic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proteus&diff=prev&oldid=233547113] Your point? If you want the article to be written the way you want it to be written, you know full well that you need citations that support your case. End of discussion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proteus&diff=prev&oldid=233551078] For the third? Fourth? time: WP:Civil would be of great use to you.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User talk:Proteus

During a dispute about precedence in the Royal Family, here and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&oldid=233582263#Precedence here]:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proteus&diff=prev&oldid=233541768] Stop being rude. I did read the talk page, and apart from your assertion that Burke's is dodgy, there's actually no citation supporting your version.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proteus&diff=prev&oldid=233545680] Please re-read WP:Civil. Thanks. Stop being so antagonistic.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proteus&diff=prev&oldid=233547113] Your point? If you want the article to be written the way you want it to be written, you know full well that you need citations that support your case. End of discussion.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proteus&diff=prev&oldid=233551078] For the third? Fourth? time: WP:Civil would be of great use to you.

===edit summaries===

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

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Edit summaries
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pretender&diff=prev&oldid=217779682] 17:13, 7 June 2008 - Again: SHE SAYS SHE IS ILLEGITIMATE. Therefore, not libel. Don't do this again. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_William_of_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=221586781] 04:43, 25 June 2008 - I did see the discussion page, where you have been proven quite conclusively wrong. Please do not edit this page until you understand WP:Naming Conventions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_William_of_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=221663333] 14:51, 25 June 2008 - Again. Stop editing this until you understand WP:Naming conventions (names and titles), ok? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_William_of_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=221682576] 16:36, 25 June 2008 - There. Happy? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=223443582] 02:46, 4 July 2008 ‎- It's the INFOBOX, not the TOC. Why is this such a big deal??? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20080531224249&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Roux] 17:38, 20 July 2008 - There, can we stop talking about this now? Thanks. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh&diff=prev&oldid=228997159] 11:37, 31 July 2008 - Ref discussion yourself, dude. NPOV. Stop it please. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=230663485] 18:39, 8 August 2008 - Bye bye. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=230681533] 20:17, 8 August 2008 - Get your facts straight, kid. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=230733145] 02:03, 9 August 2008 - And now, homophobia. Nicely done. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olympic_Games&diff=prev&oldid=233143161] 16:55, 20 August 2008 - The rewrite is EXTREMELY POV. Please provide citations. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kbthompson&diff=prev&oldid=233154589] 18:03, 20 August 2008 - Hint? Some people need a clue-by-four.. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=233541986] 14:29, 22 August 2008 -‎ Don't be rude. See your talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=230704020] 15:21, 22 August 2008 ‎- Grow up. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Windsor&diff=prev&oldid=236954641] 23:00, 7 September 2008 ‎- For the last time, fixbunching has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITESPACE. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=236955296] 23:03, 7 September 2008 - Enough is enough. You don't understand what you're doing... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=237086074] 16:10, 8 September 2008 - For God's sake. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=237086975] 16:15, 8 September 2008 - Be civil in edit summaries. Also stop until you learn how formatting works. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=237089153] 16:28, 8 September 2008 - For crying out loud. Fine, go find someone to resolve it, and STOP editing until then. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=237108343] 18:14, 8 September 2008 - Go away. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=237128598] 20:02, 8 September 2008 - For God's sake. READ. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=prev&oldid=237136483] 20:42, 8 September 2008 - How unsurprising. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=237153642] 22:09, 8 September 2008 - A screenshot, you say? Also: discussion over. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=237160986] 22:52, 8 September 2008 - Oh my GOD DO YOU NEVER GIVE IT UP? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=237164319] 23:12, 8 September 2008 - Oh God. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=237172063] 23:57, 8 September 2008 - Oh God. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=237173495] 00:06, 9 September 2008 - Oh my GOD. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay&diff=prev&oldid=237201442] 02:56, 9 September 2008 - For God's sake, what the hell is wrong with you? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=prev&oldid=237551218] 19:01, 10 September 2008 - Restoring my intriguingly removed comment. Don't like it when people tell the truth, eh? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=237572230] 20:54, 10 September 2008 - Vandalism warning? Ha. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=prev&oldid=237578351] 21:22, 10 September 2008 - Stop lying. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Barbados&diff=prev&oldid=238611774] 16:34, 15 September 2008 - As if [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15_Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=238668714] 21:24, 15 September 2008 - Do not ever again twist my words like that. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15_Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=238669931] 21:30, 15 September 2008 - And I am done with this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15_Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=238889016] 21:19, 16 September 2008 - G2, stop moving my comments. I put them where I put them on purpose. Got it? Good. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247927897&oldid=247927338] 05:33, 27 October 2008 - I'm done, bye.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Edit summaries

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pretender&diff=prev&oldid=217779682] 17:13, 7 June 2008 - Again: SHE SAYS SHE IS ILLEGITIMATE. Therefore, not libel. Don't do this again.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_William_of_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=221586781] 04:43, 25 June 2008 - I did see the discussion page, where you have been proven quite conclusively wrong. Please do not edit this page until you understand WP:Naming Conventions.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_William_of_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=221663333] 14:51, 25 June 2008 - Again. Stop editing this until you understand WP:Naming conventions (names and titles), ok?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_William_of_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=221682576] 16:36, 25 June 2008 - There. Happy?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=223443582] 02:46, 4 July 2008 ‎- It's the INFOBOX, not the TOC. Why is this such a big deal???
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20080531224249&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Roux] 17:38, 20 July 2008 - There, can we stop talking about this now? Thanks.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh&diff=prev&oldid=228997159] 11:37, 31 July 2008 - Ref discussion yourself, dude. NPOV. Stop it please.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=230663485] 18:39, 8 August 2008 - Bye bye.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=230681533] 20:17, 8 August 2008 - Get your facts straight, kid.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=230733145] 02:03, 9 August 2008 - And now, homophobia. Nicely done.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olympic_Games&diff=prev&oldid=233143161] 16:55, 20 August 2008 - The rewrite is EXTREMELY POV. Please provide citations.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kbthompson&diff=prev&oldid=233154589] 18:03, 20 August 2008 - Hint? Some people need a clue-by-four..
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=233541986] 14:29, 22 August 2008 -‎ Don't be rude. See your talk page.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=230704020] 15:21, 22 August 2008 ‎- Grow up.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Windsor&diff=prev&oldid=236954641] 23:00, 7 September 2008 ‎- For the last time, fixbunching has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITESPACE.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=236955296] 23:03, 7 September 2008 - Enough is enough. You don't understand what you're doing...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=237086074] 16:10, 8 September 2008 - For God's sake.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=237086975] 16:15, 8 September 2008 - Be civil in edit summaries. Also stop until you learn how formatting works.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=237089153] 16:28, 8 September 2008 - For crying out loud. Fine, go find someone to resolve it, and STOP editing until then.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=237108343] 18:14, 8 September 2008 - Go away.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=237128598] 20:02, 8 September 2008 - For God's sake. READ.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=prev&oldid=237136483] 20:42, 8 September 2008 - How unsurprising.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=237153642] 22:09, 8 September 2008 - A screenshot, you say? Also: discussion over.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=237160986] 22:52, 8 September 2008 - Oh my GOD DO YOU NEVER GIVE IT UP?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=237164319] 23:12, 8 September 2008 - Oh God.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=237172063] 23:57, 8 September 2008 - Oh God.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=237173495] 00:06, 9 September 2008 - Oh my GOD.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay&diff=prev&oldid=237201442] 02:56, 9 September 2008 - For God's sake, what the hell is wrong with you?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=prev&oldid=237551218] 19:01, 10 September 2008 - Restoring my intriguingly removed comment. Don't like it when people tell the truth, eh?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=237572230] 20:54, 10 September 2008 - Vandalism warning? Ha.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=prev&oldid=237578351] 21:22, 10 September 2008 - Stop lying.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Barbados&diff=prev&oldid=238611774] 16:34, 15 September 2008 - As if
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15_Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=238668714] 21:24, 15 September 2008 - Do not ever again twist my words like that.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15_Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=238669931] 21:30, 15 September 2008 - And I am done with this.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15_Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=238889016] 21:19, 16 September 2008 - G2, stop moving my comments. I put them where I put them on purpose. Got it? Good.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247927897&oldid=247927338] 05:33, 27 October 2008 - I'm done, bye.

==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:

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Talk:Order of Canada
G2bambino [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223445601&oldid=223240335 started a discussion] about an edit PrinceOfCanada/Roux had made to Order of Canada. G2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223445601&oldid=223240335] PoC... I'm not sure what you find so offensive about the infobox crossing the line, so to speak. It happens all the time on many articles; it isn't a breach of any manual of style guidelines. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223447525&oldid=223445601] It's just ugly, that's all. G2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223447750&oldid=223447525] But, you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223448613&oldid=223447750] Don't talk to me like I'm a child.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Talk:Order of Canada

G2bambino [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223445601&oldid=223240335 started a discussion] about an edit PrinceOfCanada/Roux had made to Order of Canada.

G2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223445601&oldid=223240335] PoC... I'm not sure what you find so offensive about the infobox crossing the line, so to speak. It happens all the time on many articles; it isn't a breach of any manual of style guidelines.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223447525&oldid=223445601] It's just ugly, that's all.
G2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223447750&oldid=223447525] But, you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223448613&oldid=223447750] Don't talk to me like I'm a child.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User talk:PrinceOfCanada
G2bambino [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236710674&oldid=236707075 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: G2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236929310&oldid=236929227] I can understand your analogy, but, as I just alluded to, it applies equally to you. Your "solution" creates a problem from my end, and my "solution" (apparently) creates a problem from your end, so... seemingly, neither of us is right. I think this needs to go to a wider audience for a solution, not just for the EIIR article, but to learn something for any possible instances of the same issue in the future. Thereafter PrinceOfCanada became irritated, stating: PoC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236930643&oldid=236929310] I have tried and tried to explain why formatting a bunch of images so the layout is perfect on your computer does not work. I have tried and tried to explain why removing whitespace that you see via such layouts does not work. I have tried to actually engage in a discussion with you, but it does not work, as you keep ignoring just about everything I say. I will try to make this as simple and as clear as humanly possible... What part of this are you not understanding? That is an honest question; I am baffled by your lack of understanding, so clearly I must be missing something. Then: PoC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236931166&oldid=236930643] Oh, and I am right. I have explained to you at least half a dozen times exactly why, and in several different ways. I am sorry that you don't understand it; I am trying my best. But the fact remains that I am right when it comes to how layout works. Then: PoC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236965196&oldid=236963042] Of course you are wrong. And uncivil. And unless you start actually responding to what I say, as opposed to ignoring it, making rude edit summaries, and indeed proving that you actually understand anything I have patiently tried to explain to you, my next stop is either Wikiquette alerts or ANI to get you to stop with your behaviour.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User talk:PrinceOfCanada

G2bambino [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236710674&oldid=236707075 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:

G2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236929310&oldid=236929227] I can understand your analogy, but, as I just alluded to, it applies equally to you. Your "solution" creates a problem from my end, and my "solution" (apparently) creates a problem from your end, so... seemingly, neither of us is right. I think this needs to go to a wider audience for a solution, not just for the EIIR article, but to learn something for any possible instances of the same issue in the future.

Thereafter PrinceOfCanada became irritated, stating:

PoC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236930643&oldid=236929310] I have tried and tried to explain why formatting a bunch of images so the layout is perfect on your computer does not work. I have tried and tried to explain why removing whitespace that you see via such layouts does not work. I have tried to actually engage in a discussion with you, but it does not work, as you keep ignoring just about everything I say. I will try to make this as simple and as clear as humanly possible... What part of this are you not understanding? That is an honest question; I am baffled by your lack of understanding, so clearly I must be missing something.

Then:

PoC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236931166&oldid=236930643] Oh, and I am right. I have explained to you at least half a dozen times exactly why, and in several different ways. I am sorry that you don't understand it; I am trying my best. But the fact remains that I am right when it comes to how layout works.

Then:

PoC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=236965196&oldid=236963042] Of course you are wrong. And uncivil. And unless you start actually responding to what I say, as opposed to ignoring it, making rude edit summaries, and indeed proving that you actually understand anything I have patiently tried to explain to you, my next stop is either Wikiquette alerts or ANI to get you to stop with your behaviour.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Other examples
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237108343&oldid=237107320] You appear to be incapable of understanding anything that I have said... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=236988511&oldid=236985356] Shockingly, the man who doesn't comprehend how layout works disagreed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=237157555&oldid=237156954] Would have been much simpler if he'd simply agreed in the first place, seeing as I was right anyway. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=237160986&oldid=237159300] your inability to comprehend incredibly simple concepts related to formatting doesn't make them unreal. It makes them beyond your comprehension. Deal with it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243365805] Doubly amusing since it's quite, quite clear that you were in error the first time around, too... Your inability or unwillingness to read it is not my problem... Of course, your dismissal of anyone offering a third opinion that is at odds with yours is clearly on the record, so I suppose I shouldn't be particularly surprised. And yet again, it's fascinating that sources are 'of no consequence' or 'irrelevant' only when you disagree with them... Funny how that works, don't you think? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237353405&oldid=237351001] A long discussion here has failed to make him understand that 'removing whitespace' is a formatting issue that can only work on his computer. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237365904&oldid=237365884] ...it is part and parcel of the same issue: his utter inability to understand how formatting works... Indeed, the lack of civility began when he started using words like 'hideous' to describe my functional edits. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Barbados&diff=238482586&oldid=238482124] Easy. Problem: You're removing an image that doesn't need to be removed. Fix: I've put it back. All done. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=243540016&oldid=243537875] The version I wrote is fine, crystal clear, and represents past and current thinking accurately and logically--that is, moving from past thought on the subject to the current thinking, unlike G2's version which clearly implies the current thinking is wrong. I'm sure that implication has nothing to do with his POV. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248268627&oldid=248267916] Look. I have explained time and time and time and time again why the use of that reference implies something that it does not say. You are refusing to listen. This is not my problem. I have made the point clear... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247927897&oldid=247927338] I have addressed your point. Your unwillingness to accept that is not my problem.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Other examples

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237108343&oldid=237107320] You appear to be incapable of understanding anything that I have said...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=236988511&oldid=236985356] Shockingly, the man who doesn't comprehend how layout works disagreed.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=237157555&oldid=237156954] Would have been much simpler if he'd simply agreed in the first place, seeing as I was right anyway.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=237160986&oldid=237159300] your inability to comprehend incredibly simple concepts related to formatting doesn't make them unreal. It makes them beyond your comprehension. Deal with it.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=prev&oldid=243365805] Doubly amusing since it's quite, quite clear that you were in error the first time around, too... Your inability or unwillingness to read it is not my problem... Of course, your dismissal of anyone offering a third opinion that is at odds with yours is clearly on the record, so I suppose I shouldn't be particularly surprised. And yet again, it's fascinating that sources are 'of no consequence' or 'irrelevant' only when you disagree with them... Funny how that works, don't you think?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237353405&oldid=237351001] A long discussion here has failed to make him understand that 'removing whitespace' is a formatting issue that can only work on his computer.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237365904&oldid=237365884] ...it is part and parcel of the same issue: his utter inability to understand how formatting works... Indeed, the lack of civility began when he started using words like 'hideous' to describe my functional edits.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Barbados&diff=238482586&oldid=238482124] Easy. Problem: You're removing an image that doesn't need to be removed. Fix: I've put it back. All done.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&diff=243540016&oldid=243537875] The version I wrote is fine, crystal clear, and represents past and current thinking accurately and logically--that is, moving from past thought on the subject to the current thinking, unlike G2's version which clearly implies the current thinking is wrong. I'm sure that implication has nothing to do with his POV.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248268627&oldid=248267916] Look. I have explained time and time and time and time again why the use of that reference implies something that it does not say. You are refusing to listen. This is not my problem. I have made the point clear...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247927897&oldid=247927338] I have addressed your point. Your unwillingness to accept that is not my problem.

==Maintaining disputes==

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

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Barbados&diff=238486172&oldid=238485744] ...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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Barbados&diff=238491012&oldid=238486172] I will be a cooperative element when you do [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APrinceOfCanada&diff=237824641&oldid=237824323 these things]. I have made my position clear. This discussion is over.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Barbados&diff=238498660&oldid=238496664] 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:

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

At the end of a dispute, G2bambino stated:

G2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=247836257&oldid=247670543] 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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=247854843&oldid=247836257] Insults, now? Great.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=247855682&oldid=247854843] I'm sorry you percieve insult in my commentary.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=247856367&oldid=247855768] You know you intended an insult, so don't be disingenuous.
G2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=247857094&oldid=247856367] No, I did not; please stop being presumptuous.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&diff=247857369&oldid=247856159] You insulted me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&curid=12197038&diff=247836257&oldid=247670543 here] and you know it...
G2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&diff=247859350&oldid=247857369] I did not insult you.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&diff=247860197&oldid=247859350] "I had hoped we'd all be smart enough" - implying you're the only one smart enough.
G2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&diff=247861023&oldid=247860197] You presume that I am somehow not included in "we".
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247926762&oldid=247926130] I walked away due to your condescension there, and insults in a previous thread.
G2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247927338&oldid=247926762] I explained to you (numerous times in one case) that there was no insult intended.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=247927897&oldid=247927338] 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==

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:

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

In editing at Monarchy of Canada, in an edit summary, I called PrinceOfCanada/Roux's previous edit "unsightly."

G2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=236951526&oldid=236817820] 22:44, 7 September 2008 - fix unsightly image moves

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

PoC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=236954952&oldid=236952459] 23:02, 7 September 2008 - I suggest you re-read WP:Civil. It applies to edit summaries.

At the talk page, {{user|Gavin Scott}} specifically asked what incivility PoC had been referring to.

GS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=236980449&oldid=236970294] 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=236982815&oldid=236980449] 01:50, 8 September 2008 - 18:44, 7 September 2008 G2bambino (Talk | contribs) (103,408 bytes) (fix unsightly image moves) (undo)

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

In editing at Monarchy of Canada, in an edit summary, I called PrinceOfCanada/Roux's previous edit "unsightly."

G2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=237052691&oldid=237052431] 12:31, 8 September 2008 - fix unsightly image moves

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

PoC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=237086975&oldid=237053036] 16:15, 8 September 2008 - Be civil in edit summaries. Also stop until you learn how formatting works.

And later:

PoC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237365904&oldid=237365884] 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:

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=223402389] 22:42, 3 July 2008 - That sentence is a mess, though.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=223442373] 02:38, 4 July 2008 ‎- because the formatting looked ugly with the infobox going over the dividing line.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Canada&diff=223447525&oldid=223445601] 03:12, 4 July 2008 - It's just ugly, that's all.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=232833565] 04:12, 19 August 2008 - If we must, let's make it less ugly, shall we?

==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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=243995782&oldid=243995643 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:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cameron&diff=237321963&oldid=237318032] 17:17, 9 September 2008 - ...these aren't reasons for him to be thrown the hell off the project?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Governor-General_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=243381294] 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=

= Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute =

Mediation Cabal

PrinceOfCanada/Roux made reconciliatory efforts in good faith:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15_Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=239392865&oldid=239392479] 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:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15_Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=239725278] 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:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawe&diff=240153651&oldid=238627552 this] in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayalld&diff=239034512&oldid=239015340 this]

===Suggested joint RfC===

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

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

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiptoety&diff=243576990&oldid=243571178] 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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=prev&oldid=243578786] 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===

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

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

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248458990&oldid=248456472] 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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248462820&oldid=248458990] 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===

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User:Police,Mad,Jack
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237715591&oldid=237628886] I was only reverting someone who posted a good faith comment on your userpage, rather than talk. Just trying to help. Also, do not be rude to me, I was just trying to help. If I see someone plaster your page with vandalism, I will not revert it, you should have just showed gratitude for someone helping in the first place, dear me. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Police,Mad,Jack&diff=237770220&oldid=237715653] I wasn't being rude.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User:Police,Mad,Jack

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237715591&oldid=237628886] I was only reverting someone who posted a good faith comment on your userpage, rather than talk. Just trying to help. Also, do not be rude to me, I was just trying to help. If I see someone plaster your page with vandalism, I will not revert it, you should have just showed gratitude for someone helping in the first place, dear me.

PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Police,Mad,Jack&diff=237770220&oldid=237715653] I wasn't being rude.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User:Gavin Scott
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237385051&oldid=237374102] What I meant when I said "rude" and "belittling" and "superior" in reference to you was that that was how your comments came across- I conceded I could have been wrong however, stating how I felt when reading your messages was a good faith comment to try and resolve your dispute. I was hardly being rude considering I did as you requested and never commented on your personal state again- even the first time was just a suggestion that maybe you needed time to cool off. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237385521&oldid=237385051] "I can say what I want" is not a polite response to "don't make personal comments about me". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237365309&oldid=237364921] PoC recognizes no responsibility for this dispute and seems to treat his perception as absolute. I am fairly certain this is a calculated attack on G2 by PoC because of their dispute over EIIR and Whitespace, if you look at the talk page you can see PoC is the one who first abandons WP:CIVIL with his choice of provocative language. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237365904&oldid=237365884] Calling this a 'calculated attack' is itself a violation of WP:Civil and [{WP:AGF]]. Tsk. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237372619&oldid=237372488] See, when you make statements like "utter inability" do you not feel you are maybe being, even just a little, provocative? Accusing someone of wikilawyering implies they are being sneaky and manipulative don't you think? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237376329&oldid=237376171] I see a dispute which has gotten heated and escalated. You were part of that and contributed to the escalation- do you think that is untrue? As I read over what other users have to say about the ANI action I suspect they too think that maybe there is equal blame on both sides. I am going to go back to my first piece of advice on this situation, allow yourself to cool off- then go back to it. I think that you are clearly upset, as demonstrated by your decision to leave the project. Are you sure that you are in the right emotional state to make such a complaint right now? PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237377227&oldid=237376773] I do think it is untrue that I contributed to the escalation. Further, I would welcome you not commenting on my emotional state... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237377853&oldid=237377735] See, I think you are partly responsible, as someone who has had a dispute with you before, you do tend to belittle other users, insult them and impose superiority over them- at least that is how I feel about it. Also, I think your dead set on your views here with no room to change them, I will wait to see what an admin has to say about this dispute, I suspect he will agree that it takes two to tango. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237379759&oldid=237378519] Okay, you think I'm responsible. That's your prerogative. You're also wrong... And yes, I am (strangely) set in my views... And while you may reserve your right to pass comment on anything, one would suggest you look up the word 'tact'. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=237382199&oldid=237381848] JzG, as a third party to the dispute between PoC and G2 I'd like to point out that not all users accept the assertion that he is a "disruptive and bullying editor". Rather than shifting this complaint onwards through the process might I request you settle it by giving some advice to both users about how to settle this dispute and continue to editing together constructively? PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=237382734&oldid=237382199] You are hardly unbiased... Also.. must you follow me everywhere? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=237383647&oldid=237383553] I made a request to JzG to try and resolve this dispute, please don't try and pull me into it. Also, saying I am unbiased is a violation of WP:AGF. I am not following you everywhere, I am simply following through this dispute thing. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=237384255&oldid=237383647] Stating that you believe my actions are an attack is not an unbiased statement, nor is commenting on my supposed emotional state (and indeed being rude when asked not to do so again), nor is saying that I am "rude" and "belittling" and "superior", so no, it's not a violation of AGF. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=237323470&oldid=237322289] I wish you all the best in your editing career, however again I say to you- if you are in a place where you feel your being abused, take a step back and cool down. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=237324105&oldid=237323600] Cute, you and G2 employ the same sort of fake-obtuseness and pretending to be saying something nice. Peas in a pod. Let me be a lot more clear, then: do not comment on my talk page, you are not welcome, for the same reasons that G2 is not welcome. That, I hope, should be perfectly clear. Bye. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=237324734&oldid=237324660] It was clear, I did not comment on your talk page...yet you continue to post on mine...perhaps the circumstances have upset you and this is why you are being so, "highly strung" (at least that is how it appears to me). Might I recommend that you do give consideration to a WP:Wikibreak? Perhaps after you have cooled off your judgment might return to its usual level and you will be able to re-assess the situation? PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=237325769&oldid=237325100] Your smartass response ("I am unsure what its actual distance is from other talkpages/articles etc...this is indeed confounding.") indicated that it was necessary to guarantee that you actually understood what I was saying. Do you really have nothing better to do than gloat when your little buddy G2 has driven another user away from the project? Goodbye.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User:Gavin Scott

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237385051&oldid=237374102] What I meant when I said "rude" and "belittling" and "superior" in reference to you was that that was how your comments came across- I conceded I could have been wrong however, stating how I felt when reading your messages was a good faith comment to try and resolve your dispute. I was hardly being rude considering I did as you requested and never commented on your personal state again- even the first time was just a suggestion that maybe you needed time to cool off.

PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237385521&oldid=237385051] "I can say what I want" is not a polite response to "don't make personal comments about me".
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237365309&oldid=237364921] PoC recognizes no responsibility for this dispute and seems to treat his perception as absolute. I am fairly certain this is a calculated attack on G2 by PoC because of their dispute over EIIR and Whitespace, if you look at the talk page you can see PoC is the one who first abandons WP:CIVIL with his choice of provocative language.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237365904&oldid=237365884] Calling this a 'calculated attack' is itself a violation of WP:Civil and [{WP:AGF]]. Tsk.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237372619&oldid=237372488] See, when you make statements like "utter inability" do you not feel you are maybe being, even just a little, provocative? Accusing someone of wikilawyering implies they are being sneaky and manipulative don't you think?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237376329&oldid=237376171] I see a dispute which has gotten heated and escalated. You were part of that and contributed to the escalation- do you think that is untrue? As I read over what other users have to say about the ANI action I suspect they too think that maybe there is equal blame on both sides. I am going to go back to my first piece of advice on this situation, allow yourself to cool off- then go back to it. I think that you are clearly upset, as demonstrated by your decision to leave the project. Are you sure that you are in the right emotional state to make such a complaint right now?
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237377227&oldid=237376773] I do think it is untrue that I contributed to the escalation. Further, I would welcome you not commenting on my emotional state...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237377853&oldid=237377735] See, I think you are partly responsible, as someone who has had a dispute with you before, you do tend to belittle other users, insult them and impose superiority over them- at least that is how I feel about it. Also, I think your dead set on your views here with no room to change them, I will wait to see what an admin has to say about this dispute, I suspect he will agree that it takes two to tango.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237379759&oldid=237378519] Okay, you think I'm responsible. That's your prerogative. You're also wrong... And yes, I am (strangely) set in my views... And while you may reserve your right to pass comment on anything, one would suggest you look up the word 'tact'.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=237382199&oldid=237381848] JzG, as a third party to the dispute between PoC and G2 I'd like to point out that not all users accept the assertion that he is a "disruptive and bullying editor". Rather than shifting this complaint onwards through the process might I request you settle it by giving some advice to both users about how to settle this dispute and continue to editing together constructively?
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=237382734&oldid=237382199] You are hardly unbiased... Also.. must you follow me everywhere?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=237383647&oldid=237383553] I made a request to JzG to try and resolve this dispute, please don't try and pull me into it. Also, saying I am unbiased is a violation of WP:AGF. I am not following you everywhere, I am simply following through this dispute thing.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=237384255&oldid=237383647] Stating that you believe my actions are an attack is not an unbiased statement, nor is commenting on my supposed emotional state (and indeed being rude when asked not to do so again), nor is saying that I am "rude" and "belittling" and "superior", so no, it's not a violation of AGF.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=237323470&oldid=237322289] I wish you all the best in your editing career, however again I say to you- if you are in a place where you feel your being abused, take a step back and cool down.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=237324105&oldid=237323600] Cute, you and G2 employ the same sort of fake-obtuseness and pretending to be saying something nice. Peas in a pod. Let me be a lot more clear, then: do not comment on my talk page, you are not welcome, for the same reasons that G2 is not welcome. That, I hope, should be perfectly clear. Bye.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=237324734&oldid=237324660] It was clear, I did not comment on your talk page...yet you continue to post on mine...perhaps the circumstances have upset you and this is why you are being so, "highly strung" (at least that is how it appears to me). Might I recommend that you do give consideration to a WP:Wikibreak? Perhaps after you have cooled off your judgment might return to its usual level and you will be able to re-assess the situation?
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_Scott&diff=237325769&oldid=237325100] Your smartass response ("I am unsure what its actual distance is from other talkpages/articles etc...this is indeed confounding.") indicated that it was necessary to guarantee that you actually understood what I was saying. Do you really have nothing better to do than gloat when your little buddy G2 has driven another user away from the project? Goodbye.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User:WilyD
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237580218&oldid=237580093] And as one thing leads to another, I've applied a 24 hour block to your account. Please familiarise yourself with policies regarding interactions, notably WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and treat fellow contributors with the respect you would like to receive in the future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237583207&oldid=237581746] To be frank, though, the kind of harrassment you gave G2Bambino is his userspace is not acceptable, and if you don't realise that, you'll end up reblock by someone or another quite soon, and likely for longer. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237584143&oldid=237583207] It's 'grossly inappropriate' to undo selective editing of my comments, and point out lies about my behaviour? Really? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237597346&oldid=237596373] Assume good faith is not conclude good faith - I already warned you to stop restoring a discussion G2Bambino had deleted from his talk, and you already failed to heed that warning... you did disrupt his talk page and very believably anatagonise him. It would behoove you not to complain about other people's behaviour when you engage in that same behaviour yourself. Your block will expire soon enough, and I hope in the interim you'll realise that when you treat other editors badly, they won't leave piles of praise and respect on your doorstep. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237598231&oldid=237597346] And no, the block will not expire "soon enough"; that there is a block at all, given your bias (as characterized by your insult to me), is ridiculous. I am promising not to make any edits to his talk page. You have no good reason to not assume good faith on my part when I make that promise.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User:WilyD

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237580218&oldid=237580093] And as one thing leads to another, I've applied a 24 hour block to your account. Please familiarise yourself with policies regarding interactions, notably WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and treat fellow contributors with the respect you would like to receive in the future.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237583207&oldid=237581746] To be frank, though, the kind of harrassment you gave G2Bambino is his userspace is not acceptable, and if you don't realise that, you'll end up reblock by someone or another quite soon, and likely for longer.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237584143&oldid=237583207] It's 'grossly inappropriate' to undo selective editing of my comments, and point out lies about my behaviour? Really?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237597346&oldid=237596373] Assume good faith is not conclude good faith - I already warned you to stop restoring a discussion G2Bambino had deleted from his talk, and you already failed to heed that warning... you did disrupt his talk page and very believably anatagonise him. It would behoove you not to complain about other people's behaviour when you engage in that same behaviour yourself. Your block will expire soon enough, and I hope in the interim you'll realise that when you treat other editors badly, they won't leave piles of praise and respect on your doorstep.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237598231&oldid=237597346] And no, the block will not expire "soon enough"; that there is a block at all, given your bias (as characterized by your insult to me), is ridiculous. I am promising not to make any edits to his talk page. You have no good reason to not assume good faith on my part when I make that promise.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User:the ed17
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238595571&oldid=238583341] Do you read your own comments? They are inflammatory and incendiary do the other editors here. I'm not involved in any of these conflicts, so I figure that as an unbiased editor, you may take heed to these links I give you: WP:BAIT, WP:NICE and WP:CIVIL#Considerations_concerning_civility. Don't try to turn this around by saying that the other people should follow these; instead, be a better person than them and simply walk away. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238606158&oldid=238599017] I do not take accusations of sockpuppetry lightly, and even less so when they're the byproduct of an agenda and have no basis in reality. One would even further point out that your (laughably incorrect) judgement of my ability to listen to anyone who disagrees with me violates the very same guidelines you're trying to point out to me. Moving on, I only brushed off G2 when it became clear that he a) wasn't listening (count how many times I had to say the exact same thing over and over again before he finally got it; the fixbunching template, that is), b) a thorough hypocrite who is very much a fan of telling people what to do and then ignoring it himself, and c) was only really interested in insulting me--'vandalism', 'hideous', 'obstinate', 'looks like shit', etc. I would thank you to not judge me, and I will provide you the same courtesy in return. K? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238634939&oldid=238606610] My intentions are not to judge, but to point you to the correct door! The door that leads to being a well-respected editor! Constant personal attacks, even if they are made in defense of personal attacks against yourself, are personal attacks, and you are simply using the same methods that you criticize from others.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238635829&oldid=238635047] See WP:POINT and WP:DRAMA too, please. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238670549&oldid=238669523] Still not comprehending how factual statements such as "you lied about me" (verifiably true), "you are a hypocrite" (verifiably true), etc, are attacks, by the way. "You're a douchebag"? That's an attack, sure. "You did X", supported by truth? Not an attack. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238672026&oldid=238670549] Maybe it's because you started the entire merry-go-round with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AG2bambino&diff=237136241&oldid=237135617 this inflammatory edit]. Walk away and become a good Wikipedia editior—i.e. less Wikidrama. I am not going to have more of my words twisted around. I am already sick of you as an editor, and as a person, you should be ashamed of your multiple attacks upon multiple people. Claiming that it is "all their/his fault" has convinced me of exactly the opposite. :''Quick explanatory note left by Ed at 16:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC) : Yes, the link is wrong, it was supposed to be for the edit immediately prior to the one I linked but I copied it in wrong when I left the original message. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238672485&oldid=238672026] You really should learn the history of what's going on before judging me. I should think, further, that comments like "I am already sick of you" and "you should be ashamed" are not terribly civil. Or is it different when you say them? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238677382&oldid=238677287] You actually started the endless personal attacks roller coaster with "Look, you clearly do not understand layout, because you keep--despite me explaining repeatedly otherwise--thinking that fixbunching has anything to do with whitespace. I suggest, again, that you read this. Or has the way computers work changed since you wrote that? Prince of Canada t \| c 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"...And then you couldn't let it go. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238678047&oldid=238677382] Actually no. Note G2's use of 'hideous' above.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User:the ed17

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238595571&oldid=238583341] Do you read your own comments? They are inflammatory and incendiary do the other editors here. I'm not involved in any of these conflicts, so I figure that as an unbiased editor, you may take heed to these links I give you: WP:BAIT, WP:NICE and WP:CIVIL#Considerations_concerning_civility. Don't try to turn this around by saying that the other people should follow these; instead, be a better person than them and simply walk away.

PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238606158&oldid=238599017] I do not take accusations of sockpuppetry lightly, and even less so when they're the byproduct of an agenda and have no basis in reality. One would even further point out that your (laughably incorrect) judgement of my ability to listen to anyone who disagrees with me violates the very same guidelines you're trying to point out to me. Moving on, I only brushed off G2 when it became clear that he a) wasn't listening (count how many times I had to say the exact same thing over and over again before he finally got it; the fixbunching template, that is), b) a thorough hypocrite who is very much a fan of telling people what to do and then ignoring it himself, and c) was only really interested in insulting me--'vandalism', 'hideous', 'obstinate', 'looks like shit', etc. I would thank you to not judge me, and I will provide you the same courtesy in return. K?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238634939&oldid=238606610] My intentions are not to judge, but to point you to the correct door! The door that leads to being a well-respected editor! Constant personal attacks, even if they are made in defense of personal attacks against yourself, are personal attacks, and you are simply using the same methods that you criticize from others.'''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238635829&oldid=238635047] See WP:POINT and WP:DRAMA too, please.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238670549&oldid=238669523] Still not comprehending how factual statements such as "you lied about me" (verifiably true), "you are a hypocrite" (verifiably true), etc, are attacks, by the way. "You're a douchebag"? That's an attack, sure. "You did X", supported by truth? Not an attack.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238672026&oldid=238670549] Maybe it's because you started the entire merry-go-round with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AG2bambino&diff=237136241&oldid=237135617 this inflammatory edit]. Walk away and become a good Wikipedia editior—i.e. less Wikidrama. I am not going to have more of my words twisted around. I am already sick of you as an editor, and as a person, you should be ashamed of your multiple attacks upon multiple people. Claiming that it is "all their/his fault" has convinced me of exactly the opposite.

:''Quick explanatory note left by Ed at 16:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC) : Yes, the link is wrong, it was supposed to be for the edit immediately prior to the one I linked but I copied it in wrong when I left the original message.

PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238672485&oldid=238672026] You really should learn the history of what's going on before judging me. I should think, further, that comments like "I am already sick of you" and "you should be ashamed" are not terribly civil. Or is it different when you say them?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238677382&oldid=238677287] You actually started the endless personal attacks roller coaster with "Look, you clearly do not understand layout, because you keep--despite me explaining repeatedly otherwise--thinking that fixbunching has anything to do with whitespace. I suggest, again, that you read this. Or has the way computers work changed since you wrote that? Prince of Canada t | c 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"...And then you couldn't let it go.
PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=238678047&oldid=238677382] Actually no. Note G2's use of 'hideous' above.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User:G2bambino
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=237558628&oldid=237551679] Please don't take things completely out of context; every word I said was for a reason, and there were many different reasons for saying things, and, by saying things to each other in response to what the other said (i.e. discussion) is cooperation, even if the discussion is strained and/or agitated. There are many clues buried within the thousands of words written regarding this incident that will explain why I didn't answer a question, or failed to grasp something you were saying, if indeed I ever did; but, I'm certainly not going to go and sift through all the matter to find specific incidents and offer an explanation of every one; it would take too much time, would simply ignite a tangential debate about the debate, and, ultimately, serve no purpose. I believe that, generally, I spoke as clearly as I could, and, if I didn't understand something, I would ask (that, ironically, was exactly how the whole thing started: my asking you about "fixbunching"). It went downhill because of a number of factors, from my observation: 1) a lack of patience on your part in explaining something to an inquisitor; 2) the adoption of a haughty and derogatory attitude on your part when I didn't gasp what you were saying; 3) a lack of patience on my part in being spoken to like I'm an ignorant peasant; 4) certain weaknesses in my ability to restrain myself; 5) a low threshold on your part for criticism; 6) a weakness in your ability to restrain yourself. There may be more, but that should suffice. And, none of that means that there was no cooperation; it's just that the above factors made cooperation much more difficult that it should have been. PoC responds: I am taking nothing out of context... There was no 'haughty and derogatory' attitude...

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User:G2bambino

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=237558628&oldid=237551679] Please don't take things completely out of context; every word I said was for a reason, and there were many different reasons for saying things, and, by saying things to each other in response to what the other said (i.e. discussion) is cooperation, even if the discussion is strained and/or agitated. There are many clues buried within the thousands of words written regarding this incident that will explain why I didn't answer a question, or failed to grasp something you were saying, if indeed I ever did; but, I'm certainly not going to go and sift through all the matter to find specific incidents and offer an explanation of every one; it would take too much time, would simply ignite a tangential debate about the debate, and, ultimately, serve no purpose. I believe that, generally, I spoke as clearly as I could, and, if I didn't understand something, I would ask (that, ironically, was exactly how the whole thing started: my asking you about "fixbunching"). It went downhill because of a number of factors, from my observation: 1) a lack of patience on your part in explaining something to an inquisitor; 2) the adoption of a haughty and derogatory attitude on your part when I didn't gasp what you were saying; 3) a lack of patience on my part in being spoken to like I'm an ignorant peasant; 4) certain weaknesses in my ability to restrain myself; 5) a low threshold on your part for criticism; 6) a weakness in your ability to restrain yourself. There may be more, but that should suffice. And, none of that means that there was no cooperation; it's just that the above factors made cooperation much more difficult that it should have been.

PoC responds: I am taking nothing out of context... There was no 'haughty and derogatory' attitude...

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User:JzG
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237378519&oldid=237378443] Resolved. What part of "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department" was unclear, please? dispute resolution is second on your left down the hall. Mind how you go. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237382307&oldid=237382193] No, it's not... I dispute Jzg's 'resolution' of the matter. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=237387275&oldid=237384255] That kind of talk gives me an itchy block finger. My recommendation is that you avoid G2, but if you can't leave the articles he edits alone and vice-versa then you need to use the dispute resolution process.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User:JzG

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237378519&oldid=237378443] Resolved. What part of "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department" was unclear, please? dispute resolution is second on your left down the hall. Mind how you go.

PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237382307&oldid=237382193] No, it's not... I dispute Jzg's 'resolution' of the matter.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=237387275&oldid=237384255] That kind of talk gives me an itchy block finger. My recommendation is that you avoid G2, but if you can't leave the articles he edits alone and vice-versa then you need to use the dispute resolution process.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User:Cameron
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237320791&oldid=237266967] G2 indicated his goodwill towards you on GoodDay's page but you got angry at him. If I were you I'd accept and move on. The both of you actually have quite a lot in common. You're both canadian monarchists for starters. You should be working with each other not against each other. For the good of the encyclopaedia, if for nothing else. PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cameron&diff=237321963&oldid=237318032] What 'goodwill'? That wasn't goodwill, that was "nudge nudge, look what I did, haha" and nothing more. It's about as far from an apology it is possible to get. He is a bully and a liar and a complete jerk and I really don't understand how someone as intelligent as you are can possibly defend his actions.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User:Cameron

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=237320791&oldid=237266967] G2 indicated his goodwill towards you on GoodDay's page but you got angry at him. If I were you I'd accept and move on. The both of you actually have quite a lot in common. You're both canadian monarchists for starters. You should be working with each other not against each other. For the good of the encyclopaedia, if for nothing else.

PoC responds: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cameron&diff=237321963&oldid=237318032] What 'goodwill'? That wasn't goodwill, that was "nudge nudge, look what I did, haha" and nothing more. It's about as far from an apology it is possible to get. He is a bully and a liar and a complete jerk and I really don't understand how someone as intelligent as you are can possibly defend his actions.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|User:DoubleBlue
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Barbados&diff=238496664&oldid=238493953] I am completely new to the dispute and am not familiar with your personal animosities but PrinceOfCanada's statement above that he will not be a co-operative element is concerning. If he truly meant that, it could be grounds for blocking. I choose to believe he over-stated himself but should be more careful to say what he means. PoC responds by ignoring this statement and continued obstinance as outlined above.

class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |User:DoubleBlue

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Barbados&diff=238496664&oldid=238493953] I am completely new to the dispute and am not familiar with your personal animosities but PrinceOfCanada's statement above that he will not be a co-operative element is concerning. If he truly meant that, it could be grounds for blocking. I choose to believe he over-stated himself but should be more careful to say what he means.

PoC responds by ignoring this statement and continued obstinance as outlined above.

=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:

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of blue-eyed soul artists
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_blue-eyed_soul_artists&diff=248603721&oldid=248602404] 12:47, 30 October 2008 - How about you go re-read WP:AGF? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_blue-eyed_soul_artists&diff=248608403&oldid=248607096] 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? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_blue-eyed_soul_artists&diff=248612045&oldid=248611219] 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.

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of blue-eyed soul artists

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_blue-eyed_soul_artists&diff=248603721&oldid=248602404] 12:47, 30 October 2008 - How about you go re-read WP:AGF?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_blue-eyed_soul_artists&diff=248608403&oldid=248607096] 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?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_blue-eyed_soul_artists&diff=248612045&oldid=248611219] 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.

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Talk:Monarchy of Canada
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=247856367&oldid=247855768] 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248268627&oldid=248267916] 20:50, 28 October 2008 - This argument is over, you're free to get the last word in if it's important to you. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248271773&oldid=248270942] 21:06, 28 October 2008 - Go away and do something that's productive to the project and stop wasting my time. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248443431&oldid=248414684] 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.

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Talk:Monarchy of Canada

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=247856367&oldid=247855768] 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.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248268627&oldid=248267916] 20:50, 28 October 2008 - This argument is over, you're free to get the last word in if it's important to you.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248271773&oldid=248270942] 21:06, 28 October 2008 - Go away and do something that's productive to the project and stop wasting my time.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&diff=248443431&oldid=248414684] 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.

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"
style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" \|Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&diff=248256111&oldid=248255479] 19:46, 28 October 2008 - Your usual failure to accept what other people say is both disappointing and unsurprising. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&diff=248259548&oldid=248256557] 20:05, 28 October 2008 - Oh my good gravy. Enough of this ridiculous semanticising. Go do something productive.

style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em; background:#F5F5DC;"

style="background-color: #F5F5DC; text-align: left;" |Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&diff=248256111&oldid=248255479] 19:46, 28 October 2008 - Your usual failure to accept what other people say is both disappointing and unsurprising.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&diff=248259548&oldid=248256557] 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=

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

:# --G2bambino (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:# —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

= Other users who endorse this summary =

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:

[ 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:

GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:

D B D 17:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear. — neuro^(talk) 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
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)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Turkish_Flame&oldid=242953783 Multiple warnings to a user by PoC/Roux without actually explaining the problem]]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=242953324 My Polite warning to stop]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=242955320 my note on AIV after Roux filed ANI against Turkish Flame]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=243631119 My reply to PoC/Roux after his snotty reply] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=244006038 another]

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Gavin (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
--G2bambino (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
—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:

Mayalld (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
D B D 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawe&diff=prev&oldid=240394693]). 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawe&diff=242930232&oldid=242929857]). 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:

--Lawe (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
D B D 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

Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Mayalld (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
D B D 01:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Xavexgoem (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

=View by [[User:NuclearWarfare|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Roux&oldid=251620245 leave the project].

;Users who endorse this summary

- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Mayalld (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ ^(talk) 22:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
D B D 00:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=251485748 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Roux_possibly_violating_restrictions ANB], lead me to the conclusion that G2B is simply hounding Roux at this point. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
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.