Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roux

• [2] 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.
• [3] What is wrong with you? I ask that as a serious question... What, honestly, is wrong with you?
• [4] 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.

• [5] I'm really not sure what your problem is... One more personal attack, by the way.. go on. Make one more.
• [6] Sarcastic, yes. Other than that, kindly do not put words in my mouth or ascribe motivations to me that are not true. Ok? Good.
• [7] Also, don't patronize me. Ok? Good.
• (more below)

• [8] As has been explained several times to G2--he doesn't like to listen
• [9] *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...
• [10] 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]
• [11] Now, now, let's quote accurately, shall we?
• [12] 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.
• [13] 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.
• [14] 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.
• [15] 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?
• [16] 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.
• [17] Sorry. As GoodDay has already said, you're outnumbered here. Give in gracefully, won't you?
• [18] 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.
• [19] 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?

• [20] Your lack of ability to recognize the reality of how you treat people is not my problem.

• [21] I really am sick to death of arguing ridiculous semantics with you.
• [22] So.. yeah, sorry... And that really is quite enough of your pedantry for me today. Cheers.
• [23] 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?

• [24] I suggest you find new vocabulary; 'vile' isn't appropriate... Do you have a substantive objection other than "I don't like it"?

• [25] I notice you don't insult Mayalld this way. Interesting. Enough wikilawyering, okay?
• (more below)

• [26] As I have explained multiple times (and you keep ignoring, which makes it impossible to AGF, which I suspect you are well aware of)...
• [27] 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?
• [28] I wish to make this clear: STOP. POSTING. HERE. Your abuse is not welcome, your dishonesty is not welcome, you are not welcome.
• [29] 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?
• [30] Poor little G2bambino, hoist by his own petard. Waah.
• [31] And look, more lies on his talk page. Really, what's the point? 'Never meant to inflame'. As if.

• [32] 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.
• [33] English apparently isn't your strong suit, so I'll try to keep this simple... Grow up.
• [34] 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...
• [35] I would really suggest that you learn to comprehend basic written English better before you start hurling accusations around.
• [36] Clearly your apology was empty to begin with. Have a nice life.
• [37] Passive-aggressive, much?
• [38] 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.
• [39] 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:

• [40] 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.

• [41] 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:

• [42] There's nothing to add. I made a change, you reverted it. That counts as a revert. Bye.
• [43] I have addressed all your points. Bye now.
• (more below)

• [44] We all know that the discussion is over only when you say it is, G2.

• [45] 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.[reply]
• [46] G2 has pretty conclusively proven that there is no good faith to assume of him in that debate.

• [47] 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 [48] I have requested to have the report withdrawn. Please accept my apology.)
• [49] 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.

• [50] 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.
• [51] Please re-read WP:Civil. Thanks. Stop being so antagonistic.
• [52] 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.
• [53] For the third? Fourth? time: WP:Civil would be of great use to you.

• [54] 17:13, 7 June 2008 - Again: SHE SAYS SHE IS ILLEGITIMATE. Therefore, not libel. Don't do this again.
• [55] 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.
• [56] 14:51, 25 June 2008 - Again. Stop editing this until you understand WP:Naming conventions (names and titles), ok?
• [57] 16:36, 25 June 2008 - There. Happy?
• [58] 02:46, 4 July 2008 ‎- It's the INFOBOX, not the TOC. Why is this such a big deal???
• [59] 17:38, 20 July 2008 - There, can we stop talking about this now? Thanks.
• [60] 11:37, 31 July 2008 - Ref discussion yourself, dude. NPOV. Stop it please.
• [61] 18:39, 8 August 2008 - Bye bye.
• [62] 20:17, 8 August 2008 - Get your facts straight, kid.
• [63] 02:03, 9 August 2008 - And now, homophobia. Nicely done.
• [64] 16:55, 20 August 2008 - The rewrite is EXTREMELY POV. Please provide citations.
• [65] 18:03, 20 August 2008 - Hint? Some people need a clue-by-four..
• [66] 14:29, 22 August 2008 -‎ Don't be rude. See your talk page.
• [67] 15:21, 22 August 2008 ‎- Grow up.
• [68] 23:00, 7 September 2008 ‎- For the last time, fixbunching has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITESPACE.
• [69] 23:03, 7 September 2008 - Enough is enough. You don't understand what you're doing...
• [70] 16:10, 8 September 2008 - For God's sake.
• [71] 16:15, 8 September 2008 - Be civil in edit summaries. Also stop until you learn how formatting works.
• [72] 16:28, 8 September 2008 - For crying out loud. Fine, go find someone to resolve it, and STOP editing until then.
• [73] 18:14, 8 September 2008 - Go away.
• [74] 20:02, 8 September 2008 - For God's sake. READ.
• [75] 20:42, 8 September 2008 - How unsurprising.
• [76] 22:09, 8 September 2008 - A screenshot, you say? Also: discussion over.
• [77] 22:52, 8 September 2008 - Oh my GOD DO YOU NEVER GIVE IT UP?
• [78] 23:12, 8 September 2008 - Oh God.
• [79] 23:57, 8 September 2008 - Oh God.
• [80] 00:06, 9 September 2008 - Oh my GOD.
• [81] 02:56, 9 September 2008 - For God's sake, what the hell is wrong with you?
• [82] 19:01, 10 September 2008 - Restoring my intriguingly removed comment. Don't like it when people tell the truth, eh?
• [83] 20:54, 10 September 2008 - Vandalism warning? Ha.
• [84] 21:22, 10 September 2008 - Stop lying.
• [85] 16:34, 15 September 2008 - As if
• [86] 21:24, 15 September 2008 - Do not ever again twist my words like that.
• [87] 21:30, 15 September 2008 - And I am done with this.
• [88] 21:19, 16 September 2008 - G2, stop moving my comments. I put them where I put them on purpose. Got it? Good.
• [89] 05:33, 27 October 2008 - I'm done, bye.

• G2: [90] 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: [91] It's just ugly, that's all.
• G2: [92] 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: [93] Don't talk to me like I'm a child.

• G2 [94] 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 [95] 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 [96] 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 [97] 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.

• [98] You appear to be incapable of understanding anything that I have said...
• [99] Shockingly, the man who doesn't comprehend how layout works disagreed.
• [100] Would have been much simpler if he'd simply agreed in the first place, seeing as I was right anyway.
• [101] your inability to comprehend incredibly simple concepts related to formatting doesn't make them unreal. It makes them beyond your comprehension. Deal with it.
• [102] 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?
• [103] A long discussion here has failed to make him understand that 'removing whitespace' is a formatting issue that can only work on his computer.
• [104] ...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.
• [105] Easy. Problem: You're removing an image that doesn't need to be removed. Fix: I've put it back. All done.
• [106] 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.
• [107] 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...
• [108] I have addressed your point. Your unwillingness to accept that is not my problem.

• [143] 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: [144] I wasn't being rude.

• [145] 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: [146] "I can say what I want" is not a polite response to "don't make personal comments about me".
• [147] 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: [148] Calling this a 'calculated attack' is itself a violation of WP:Civil and [{WP:AGF]]. Tsk.
• [149] 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?
• [150] 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: [151] I do think it is untrue that I contributed to the escalation. Further, I would welcome you not commenting on my emotional state...
• [152] 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: [153] 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'.
• [154] 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: [155] You are hardly unbiased... Also.. must you follow me everywhere?
• [156] 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: [157] 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.
• [158] 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: [159] 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.
• [160] 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: [161] 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.

• [162] 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.
• [163] 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: [164] It's 'grossly inappropriate' to undo selective editing of my comments, and point out lies about my behaviour? Really?
• [165] 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: [166] 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.

• [167] 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: [168] 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?
• [169] 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.
• [170] See WP:POINT and WP:DRAMA too, please.
  • PoC responds: [171] 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.
• [172] Maybe it's because you started the entire merry-go-round with 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: [173] 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?
• [174] 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.[reply]
  • PoC responds: [175] Actually no. Note G2's use of 'hideous' above.

• [176] 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...

• [177] 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: [178] No, it's not... I dispute Jzg's 'resolution' of the matter.
• [179] 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.

• [180] 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: [181] 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.

• [182] 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.